Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acrocanthosaurus

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

---

Acrocanthosaurus

After only 100 million years or so, Acrocanthosaurus finally has a Wikipedia article worthy of its magnificence. Or at least WikiProject Dinosaurs seems to think so. So here it is, nominated for featured article. The article was mainly written by myself and User:J. Spencer and largely illustrated by the amazing User:ArthurWeasley. It has been vetted by WP:DINO and is currently the 12th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. Thanks for any comments in advance. Sheep81 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Sheepy's prose good as always, nice and comprehensive. well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Moral support as a WP:DINO member and contributor (although I think Sheep overstated my contributions; there wasn't much I could do for this article after he finished it). It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-referenced. I will be around and ready to help with any concerns, as well. J. Spencer 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you write the classification section? I can't remember. Anyway it wasn't just me. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Far superior to many of the articles I've seen on the main page. It is nicely structured, written and illustrated, and J. Spencer has cleaned up most of the issues about which I left hidden comments. I found the constant parenthetical definitions in the forelimb section wearing - all the terms are also linked after all. If you can persuade your artist, an illustration of the forelimb would be more of a help than telling us that extending means straightening and flexing means bending. The first sentence of the description: "Although slightly smaller than gigantic relatives like Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus was still among the largest theropods", could do with a little more context; after reading that I don't really know whether it was one of the largest of the time, largest ever, largest in its ecosystem, or what. Was Giganotosaurus contemporaneous? I also found the section on classification hard to understand until I realised that the vertebrae were being classified into a genus in lieu of the species. I now assume this is common practice when classifying fossil remains, but it makes for difficult reading unless you explain that. Good effort overall though, well done. Andplus 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the constructive suggestions. Hopefully some of the changes made by me (anonymously from work) and J have improved the article in your eyes. I'll run the forelimb image idea by Arthur and see if he thinks he can do something... it's a very technical image though, not his usual style. There are very nice images in the article that is cited in that paragraph actually. Unfortunately we can't use them as they are copyrighted. And yes, classification can get highly confusing when people are giving generic names or even naming whole families for isolated teeth or vertebrae. If you really want your mind blown by a taxonomic puzzle check out Paleosaurus. Thanks again, and please let us know if there is anything else you want to see beyond what you've already suggested. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - The opening paragraphs look a bit short; does there really need to be 3? Or you could expand a couple of them instead - either or, I don't mind. And a couple more of the paragraphs throughout the article look a bit on the small side; it there any way you could merge them and/or expand them? Sorry, I'm just used to much larger paragraphs - we can't have our FAs running around looking like bullet-point lists can we? :) The rest looks good. Excellent in fact. post when you're done. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Spawn, I'll see if I can combine some paragraphs. Sheep81 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support – This is a comprehensive, well sourced and well written article, which deserves FA status. Ruslik 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment: Another wonderful article from Sheep. I'm close to supporting, because it's an awesome article that as far as I can tell is well-written and close to comprehensive. However, the nomen nudum "Acracanthus" redirects to Acrocanthosaurus. DinoData indicates "Acracanthus" was a dissertation name for Acrocanthosaurus. The paper was Langston, W.R., Jr. (1947). "A new genus and species of Cretaceous theropod dinosaur from the Trinity of Atoka County, Oklahoma". University of Oklahoma unpublished M.S. thesis, 73 pp. Although this was an unpublished paper and the name has no real validity, Wikipedia readers who are seeking information on the name "Acracanthus" will be directed to our article on Acrocanthosaurus with no explanation why, and with no mention of the name "Acracanthus" in the article. I really think the name should be discussed somewhere in the body of the text, with perhaps a mention in the lead as well (for clarity to readers wondering why they've been directed to another article). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I added "Acracanthus" to the article, although I don't think such a small part of the story should go in the lead; perhaps the taxobox, if we want it up-front? J. Spencer 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed from "Comment" to "Support". No further observations from me; I can't find anything on this genus that isn't already in the article; FAC 1b "comprehensive" seems met. The prose has been refined a bit, and the topic seems clear. Plenty of citations from peer-reviewed sources, and great images by Arthur Weasley. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support : Sourcing needed for lead and infobox.--Redtigerxyz 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been avoiding citations in the lead and taxobox except where material is not redundant with the body; what would you suggest be cited in the lead/taxobox of this article? J. Spencer 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Acrocanthosaurus (pronounced IPA: /ˌækrəˌkænθəˈsɔrəs/ or ak-ro-KAN-tho-SAWR-us; meaning 'high-spined lizard' is a genus of allosauroid theropod dinosaur that existed in what is now North America during the mid-Cretaceous Period, approximately 125 to 100 million years ago. Like most dinosaur genera, Acrocanthosaurus contains only a single species, A. atokensis.

Like most theropods , Acrocanthosaurus was a bipedal predator. As the name suggests, it is best known for the high neural spines on many of its vertebrae, which most likely supported a ridge of muscle over the animal's neck, back and hips. Acrocanthosaurus was one of the largest theropods, approaching 12 meters (40 ft) in length, and weighing up to about 2.40 metric tons (2.65 short tons), comparable to a modern white rhinoceros .

Acrocanthosaurus was the largest theropod in its ecosystem and likely an apex predator which possibly preyed on large sauropods and ornithopods."

Since Acrocanthosaurus is an extinct dinosaur, the facts are likely to be challenged.

--Redtigerxyz 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

These claims are all covered in the text, Redtiger, with appropriate citations in those sections. Few Featured Articles have citations in the lead of the article, because the material in the lead is covered in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. If there's something in the lead which isn't covered in the body, it should certainly be covered. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not everything is referenced. I found references for recent discoveries and period. So removed it. What about the rest? Comparsions like "comparable to a modern white rhinoceros", "Like most dinosaur genera" can considered OR unless sourced. --Redtigerxyz 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Acrocanthosaurus is named for its tall neural spines, from the Greek ακρα/akra ('high'), ακανθα/akantha ('thorn' or 'spine') and σαυρος/sauros ('lizard')."[17]
• "Several teeth from the Arundel Formation of Maryland have been described as almost identical to those of Acrocanthosaurus and may represent an eastern representative of the genus."[22]
• "However, scientists have long considered it likely that the footprints belong to Acrocanthosaurus."[29]
• "Acrocanthosaurus was still among the largest theropods ever to exist. The longest known individual measured 11.5 meters (38 ft) from snout to tail tip and weighed an estimated 2400 kilograms (5300 lb). Its skull alone was nearly 1.3 meters (4.3 ft) in length."[1]
• "Potential prey animals include sauropods like Paluxysaurus[35] or possibly even the enormous Sauroposeidon,[36] as well as large ornithopods like Tenontosaurus."[37]

These citations are already in place, Redtiger. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed suitable citation needed tags.--Redtigerxyz 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your OR concerns, but c'mon, this seems a little extreme. A source is provided for the mass estimate for Acro, and the reader can easily click on the linked white rhinoceros article and see the similar weight. Do we really need a source to tell us that two numbers are similar? That is just mathematics. Similarly, the reader can easily click on the theropod article and in the first two sentences discover that yes, most theropods were in fact bipedal predators. This is just basic knowledge, certainly unlikely to be challenged, and I don't believe it needs to be specifically cited. Sheep81 06:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

* The theropod article is not a FAC and not as referenced as Acrocanthosaurus. If it is basic knowledge, a source would not be hard to get.

* A ref can be added for second occurence of bipedal predator in Description last para; if one does not want to add it in the lead.

* Does WP really believe in just mathematics? --Redtigerxyz 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the WWII article were to say "World War II was a war. Like in most wars, lots of people died" would we really need a citation to prove that people die in wars? I'm not arguing the fact that a ciation would be easy to come by, I'm saying that we don't need to clutter up the article with citations for such basic information. There aren't any citations for the fact that 4 is the square root of 16. Sheep81 07:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As the name suggests{{fact}}, it is best known for the high neural spines on many of its vertebrae is covered by "Acrocanthosaurus is named for its tall neural spines, from the Greek ακρα/akra ('high'), ακανθα/akantha ('thorn' or 'spine') and σαυρος/sauros ('lizard')."[17]

It should be easy enough to come up with a citation for the fact that most theropods were bipedal predators. The citation needed for "apex predator" is superfluous: there's already two citations ([36] and [37]) in the same sentence which states it preyed on giant sauropods. You don't get any bigger than a giant sauropod: there's nothing higher on the apex. That just leaves the rhino thing, which isn't all that important, and can be jettisoned if that seriously will hold up the FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"apex predators" are defined in simple terms as those predators not eaten by others and not just who eat big animals.--Redtigerxyz 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man. The animal was a 40 foot long carnivore; what animal do you think was preying on it? The article already states - with citation - that the other carnivorous dinosaur living in the area and time "provided only minimal competition for Acrocanthosaurus". Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took out the "like most other theropods" clause, since the Theropod page is the more appropriate page to establish the bipedalism and predatory behavior of theropods in general (they were all bipedal, but not all were carnivores, for the record). J. Spencer 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost supportive: The only issue bothering me is that the comparsion with white rhinoceros may be OR. The rhino article says(not ref): "This rhino can exceed 6000 pounds [approx 2721.55 kg], have a head-and-body length of 3.35-4.2 m (11-13.9 feet) and a shoulder height of 150-185 cm (60-73 inches)". Acrocanthosaurus says "12 meters (40 ft) in length, and weighing up to about 2.40 metric tons (2.65 short tons)". ---- Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What bothers me is that the one making the comparison here is innumerate enough to express that number (6,000 pounds) from the white rhinoceros article in his conversion for this talk page as "2721.55 kg". Not very good evidence of being able to comprehend comparisons like this. -- Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

6,000 pounds = 2.68 metric tons.[1] Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison removed, not that important anyway. Another solution would be to put "comparable in weight to a modern white rhinoceros" or something, as rhinos surely aren't 40 feet long. I'm glad the reviewer has come around on some of the other issues. Sheep81 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Gene Nygaard, is 2721.55 kg really wrong??? What the conversion really wrong ? I wrote the kg thing as i dont deal with pounds. I just presented the facts. I strongly object to the "innumerate" comment.

Comparsion removed. Support granted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he was getting at significant figures, specifically, what is known as superfluous precision. In short, we can calculate the conversion to more digits than are supported by the precision of the original number. In this case, the rhino was weighed as 6000 lb; a conversion of 2721.55 kg implies that the rhino was measured to a hundredth of a pound (6000.00 lb). Since this was not the case, 2722 kg is the most precise conversion that is supported by the precision of the original number (assuming that the rhino was weighed to 6000 lb and not just rounded at some point). Worst-case scenario, where the rhino was weighed on a really lousy scale only accurate to thousands of pounds, only the 6 is significant and the conversion should be 3000 kg (only 1 digit; a better way to write this to avoid those zeros would be 3*10³ kg). Unfortunately, with three trailing zeros and no indication of the precision of the scale, we can't be sure how many digits are significant. Since only four at most are present in the original, the conversion can have at most only four. Oh, and Firs, you seem to have used the UK Long Ton, not the metric ton (tonne) :) .J. Spencer (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm innumerate, too, y'know. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very well written, illustrated and referenced article, i honestly can not find any issues with the article prose or information at all. I would also suggest that Redtigerxyz is a little over enthusiastic in his calls for references in the lead. It is not needed, as all these claims are well supported in the body of the article, no matter how closely you want to examine them. Excellent work from the Dinosaur team. Kare Kare 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Sheep81 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.