Talk:Xixiasaurus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xixiasaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• why do you have the skull image twice?

Hehe, I knew this would come up! It is actually not the same image; the one under palaeobiology have thick lines drawn directly over the photo (instead of the usual separate interpretive diagram), which I found annoying, since it obscures various details. In APP pdfs, text and diagrams are sometimes on a separate SVG layer of sorts than the photos, so the photos can be extracted without the text/lines, which I did for the version in the infobox to show the specimen more clearly. Usually I wouldn't have done this, but this is also a unusual case. Since both images are useful in their own right, and since there was plenty of room in the article, I thought it would be nice to include both. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, a size comparison diagram is in the works, which will be placed in the beginning of the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Diagram now added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• a "how to pronounce the name" would be a nice-to-have

Yeah, I have no idea how to source that, though, but I just noticed that this[1] Youtube video (which also uses a silhouette of the Wikipedia restoration) has the narrator pronouncing the name; whether it is correct or not, I have no idea... FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Zanhe, who has contributed to the article (and who I assume knows the language based on edit history), knows of some resources for this? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The IPA for the Mandarin "Xixia" can be generated with {{IPAc-cmn|x|i|1|x|ia|2}}: [ɕíɕjǎ] (approximately She-shia). I suppose a source is not needed for such an automatic conversion. -Zanhe (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! How did you generate it? FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just copy and paste the template {{IPAc-cmn|x|i|1|x|ia|2}} to the page, although I'm not sure how to add the -saurus part to the output. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can it be combined with the "saurus" in the Brachiosaurus intro? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible to combine the output of two different IPA templates, other than copy-and-pasting the output manually. -Zanhe (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Kwamikagami knows how to combine it... FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to combine Mandarin and English within a word. No-one would pronounce it that way unless they were code-switching. In a pronunciation section, we'd give the English pronunciation. That could be followed by "from Mandarin Xīxiá [ɕíɕjǎ]", or probably better just a link to Xixia County, and put the Mandarin pronunciation there.

As for the English pronunciation, the narrator at that link says /ˌʃiːʃiəˈsɔːrəs/. That may be how it's anglicized, I don't know, assuming there even is an anglicized pronunciation yet. I suppose pronouncing Xixia with 3 syllables rather than the 2 it has in Mandarin is no different than pronouncing "Kyoto" and "Tokyo" with 3 syllables (kee-OH-toh and TOH-kee-oh), but the narrator also pronounces troodontid as /truːˈdɒntɪd/ rather than /troʊəˈdɒntɪd/ -- like people who say "ZOO-ology" for "ZO-ology" -- though that's also very common these days, even among academics. So I don't see anything obviously wrong with "/ˌʃiːʃiəˈsɔːrəs/". — kwami (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the pronunciation to the lead. Modify it, move it, ref it, delete it etc as you please, of course -- I'm not part of the GA review! — kwami (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition, not sure how to source it, but such has rarely been questioned during FACs anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• "HGM 41HIII−0201 in Henan Geological Museum" – woud be nice to know the town in which the museum is located

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• When viewed from below, the lower margin at the front of the upper jaw formed a tapering U-shape, distinct from the shape in other troodontids. – what is the shape seen in other troodontids, then? Is "the lower margin at the front of" really necessary, or could it be removed? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "When viewed from below, the front margin of the upper jaw", as the reader might not know which end is meant. I also added examples of other troodontid shapes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• the main part of that bone (which kept the maxilla from being part of the margin of the narial opening) – reads like the "which" would refer to the main part of the maxilla.

I split this into two sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• The maxillary process of the premaxilla extended hindwards to the same level as the nasal process there. – Why the "there"? Both processes are at very different locations.

It was to explain that they are both parts of the premaxilla (as the nasal process isn't presented elsewhere, and the reader might not know where it is), but I have removed "there" now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• The lower parts of the premaxillae were not fused together – but you already stated that the premaxillae are not fused at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "Due to not being fused together, the premaxillae had a fissure along their lower midline" (that they were not fused has to be reiterated here for context, I think). FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• On the lower side, the maxilla formed an extensive shelf … – on the inner side?

The source says "Ventrally, the longitudinally extensive shelf of the maxilla contributes to the large secondary palate and it extends posteriorly from the contact with the premaxilla". I have of course simplified this a lot, but I don't think there would be conciser ways to translate "ventrally" in this context? FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• the fifteenth tooth was the largest, and those further back were smaller. – if the fifteenth tooth was the largest, all the others must be smaller. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, removed (the source only specified to clarify this is known only from the size of the alveoli, so not really relevant here because I don't go into that much detail about which teeth are preserved or not). FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rest is all fine (I made some copy edits as I went). Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits, seems I had left some pretty indefensible mistakes in there! FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi FunkMonk I have started the copy edit for GOCE, although it is such an enviously well written article that I don't think that I will have much to do. Obviously, if you don't like any of my changes feel free to revert them. If you don't understand why I have changed something, feel free to query me here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Only thing I have a question about is this change: "Several teeth are missing from the upper jaw, but their number can be determined, since their sockets are preserved." This was originally "Several teeth are missing, but their number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets are preserved", since teeth are missing from the lower jaw as well, but there their number cannot be determined (because the lower jaw is incomplete). FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw my comment here, Gog the Mild? I have modified the sentence about the teeth, hope it is clearer. By the way, I intend to send this to FAC as soon as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, apologies for the delays on this, and yes, I did miss (or forget) the alert. I shall try to get the job finished tonight my (US) time, or tomorrow morning.

Teeth, I see now what you are saying, and there is no grammatical issue. However, it seems to beg the question of the lower teeth. Ie "Several teeth are missing" Fine. From both jaws I now know because you told me. "their number can be determined in the upper jaw". Fine. And the lower jaw? At the moment the reader does not know whether the teeth of the lower jaw are complete, all missing, partially missing; nor whether or not they can be similarly reconstructed. Obviously how you explain things is up to you, but I flag up that to my eye the prose here reads as if it were incomplete.

On this topic, in the relevant paragraph you discuss dentation, see above, go back to describing the elements of the head, then the dentation again. If I were copy editing it I would be inclined to recast the first part as something like:

The holotype specimen is the only known Xixiasaurus fossil, and consists of an almost complete skull except for the hindmost portion, as well as a partial right forelimb. The connection between the frontal (forehead bone) and nasal (bone running at the upper length of the snout) bones is displaced, and part of the braincase is missing. Most of the snout is preserved, with the dentition of the right side being well-preserved. Though several teeth are missing, their original number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets there are preserved. Only the front part of the left dentary bone (tooth-bearing bone of the mandible) and some of its broken teeth are preserved.

I would still feel that something needed to be added re the lower teeth. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, what if the sentence "Though several teeth are missing, their original number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets there are preserved." was moved last, so it comes after the sentence that explains that the lower jaw is incomplete? That would make it clearer why the number can't be determined there? FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Done.

Queries

• Would it be appropriate to link "articulated" to Articulation (anatomy)?

Yes, as long as it is not in the context of an "articulated skeleton", which would give it another meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. It links in the sense of 'joint'.

• If I am reading this correctly: "The bases of the crowns were less expanded behind the tenth maxillary tooth, and the teeth curved backwards and …" would it be helpful to a reader to either replace "and" with 'where', or "the" with 'these'?

Ah, it is actually two unrelated statements, would it be less misleading if "the teeth curved backwards and were compressed from side to side" came first? FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Done.

• "due to sharing a maxillary process of the premaxilla that separated the maxilla". This gives a variant of maxill three times in nine words. I am not sure that 'a premaxillary process' is a permissible construction. If not, consider deleting "maxillary"; the location of the process is clear from context. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Premaxillary process" also exist and are mentioned in the text here, so it might be necessary top be very clear about where a process is located so not to confuse them. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Far better to have marginally awkward phrasing than misleading, or plain wrong, phrasing, so I will leave it.

Comments

Not copy edit issues per se, but I throw them in for you to make of them what you will.

• "The nasal bones were elongated, 99.9 millimetres" A measurement of an anatomical feature of a fossil to one part in a thousand seems to me to be spurious accuracy, and you may want to consider rounding to 100 mm.

Fine for me if you round it up. I just took what the source said. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Xixiasaurus is estimated to have been around 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in)" Similarly, 1.5 m seems to be an approximate figure, and it may be appropriate to reflect this in the imperial conversion and round to 5 ft. (By inserting "|sigfig=1" into the convert template.)

Likewise, I don't mind if it is changed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Both done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As nice an article as I have ever worked on. I need to get some of your precision of description into my writing. I shall have one last look through it and sign it off. Good luck at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looking very good so far! Precision is of course much easier when you've only got dead stones to work with... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction?

How is anything known about the animal's second toe if the only known specimen lacks any of the hind leg's bones? --uKER (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

By the fact that it is a troodontid; all troodontids with preserved toes have it. So following phylogenetic bracketing, it would have it too. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)