Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apatosaurus/archive2

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 by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 [1].

---

Apatosaurus

Nominator(s): IJReid ^discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC) & LittleJerry talk 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Apatosaurus, a sauropod commonly associated with but separate from Brontosaurus. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and was nominated for FA earlier. However, in the time during the review, a major study was published revolutionizing the systematics, and the article now follows that more Apatosaurus tends to be one of the best known sauropods because of its previous synonymization with Brontosaurus, and this article comprehensively covers what it known and proposed for Apatosaurus. IJReid ^discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Infographic could stand to be larger

Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:Field_Museum_Apatosaurus_mount,_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?

Removed. Seems to high quality to be from 1909. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is the Field museums own Flickr page[2], so shouldn't be a problem. But we do have a newer photo of the mount:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

They say it's PD, but they don't say why - I'm not sure the given tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Its because the photograph was taken in 1908, and thus was taken before 1923, so that photograph is now in the Public Domain with no restrictions. IJReid ^discuss 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the current tag applies to images published before 1923, not just created. Was this image published then? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, even if it is not, the image is still PD, by selecting the "no known restrictions" license link, it reads "Participating institutions may have various reasons for determining that "no known copyright restrictions" exist, such as: The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired; The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions; The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control; or The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions." Therefore the image remains PD. Also, it is no longer on the page so it does not affect the outcome of the FAC. IJReid ^discuss 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:Dinosaur_National_Monument_quarry_map.png: has this permission been recorded via OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The owner of the blog got permission, see under the permission field, and in the source link. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Carpenter has reponded on Commons:[4] Seems it would have to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Any further comments Nikkimaria? IJReid ^discuss 03:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

General comments

• You are citing a lot from Gilmore 1936, which is a very old source, but are not critical enough. Some examples:

• The cervical vertebrae were stouter than those of other diplodocids, and were found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore. - Here you state the vertebrae are more similar to Camarasaurus than to other currently known diplodocids. The age of the cited study is not even indicated. In this context, Gilmore 1936 should not be used as a source, as only few sauropods were known at the time; it is highly unlikely that the statement still holds.

Well, I kept this information, and elaborated upon it using the info in the peer preprint you link below. IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "the humerus resembles that of Camarasaurus" – same as above. It's probably not true anymore.

The fact that the humerus resembles the humerus in Camarasaurus actually cannot change, as it is like saying that the feet of troodontids are similar to ornithomimids because they are both actometatarsalian. IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The femora of A. louisae are the stoutest of any member of Sauropoda." - Again, the statement is to old. You cannot expect that such a statement can possibly be true after 100 years of research. Is the femur really more robust than for example those of derived titanosaurs like Saltasaurus?

I changed this. IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some information is missing.

• Why is Apatosaurus considered different from other diplodocids, especially Brontosaurus? I would name and explain at least some autapomorphies.

I have now listed the autapomorphies that show Brontosaurus is valid. IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why are the two species condidered to be distinct?

I have added the information from Tschopp et al. on why they chose 13 characters for generic separation and 6 characters for specific separation. IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is an interesting study that is not incorporated yet: https://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1347v1

This information has been added under description (info on vertebrae anatomy) and paleobiology (info on the neck combat proposal). IJReid ^discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article sometimes seems to be a bit overloaded with details that are not relevant. The importance of these details remains unclear to the reader. Some examples:

• "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature." – This is inside the "Description" section. In this section, only information on the anatomy of Apatosaurus are expected. Why is this information on a single specimen important in this context? Could be removed without a problem. You do not give age estimates of other specimens discussed in the article.

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In an individual of A. louisae, the astragalus was not found fused to the tibia." - It is not clear why the reader should know this, at least without any further information. Is the astragalus fused to the tibia in other sauropods?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Within Apatosaurinae, the scapula of Apatosaurus louisae is intermediate in morphology between those of A. ajax and Brontosaurus excelsus." – there is little the reader can learn from this, without any discussion.

I think I've fixed this. IJReid ^discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The stoutest metatarsal is in digit 1; the third metatarsal is the second stoutest.[3]" – Don't understand me wrong, I love detail in dinosaur articles. But you always should try to provide context. Is this an autapomorphy of Apatosaurus, or is it the general condition in Diplodocidae?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Roughened surface textures (rugosities) are present on both ends of the femur" - Again, context is needed: What does this tell us, and is it unique in Apatosaurus?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please check the text for duplicate links (e.g., there are two links for Mike Taylor)

All uplinks are removed. IJReid ^discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The conclusions of Cobley et al. were disputed by Mike Taylor …" Mike Taylor was previously introduced as "Mike P. Taylor" in the text. You should decide wether or not to use middle initials, currently its a mess. Please check all names.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• please check for redirekts (e.g., Brontosaurus yahnahpin should point directly to Brontosaurus, not to the redirect)

Well, it is useful to have the species in the redirect, and it does not overly affect how the article is read. IJReid ^discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article makes a lot of use of the world "say". E.g., "Some studies say", "Wedel said", and so on. The word appears 14 times in the article! I would prefer using other words (e.g., "argued", "declared", "suggested", "came to the conclusion", "implied", "reasoned", "found" – there are a lot of possibilities. It has not to be "say".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are multiple issues with tense. You are describing the fossils and referring to published works both in past tense and present tense, this should be uniform. (e.g. "This was first noted" but "Some studies say"; "The neck vertebrae were" but "The phalangeal formula is".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please take a look at reference formatting:

I believe that all the reference changes have been completed. IJReid ^discuss 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes, first names are written out, and sometimes not (e.g., ref 1 vs ref 2).
• Just cite the year, not the month (e.g. ref 3).
• ref 7 misses a lot of information
• ref 8 needs a comma or something before "Programme and Abstracts"
• title mode in journal articles (e.g. ref 31).
• I'm not sure if ref 26 is a published citeable source at al. At least, the reference is totally misleading; there is no journal "dinoaurs". Best remove it completely.
• missing page ranges (e.g. ref 29)
• missing ISBN (e.g. ref 36)
• in ref 37, the position of the editors is awkward
• ref 53: add "first edition"
• ref 54: not sure why we need "Retrieved 2008-09-05" for a journal article. Suchs dates are not given in other journal article citations.
• scientific names must be in italics. e.g. ref 60.
• missing title in ref 63
• consider removing "Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science." in ref 69, 72, 73 and 74, as places are not given in other references

Lead:

• "Like all sauropods, Apatosaurus had a single claw on each forelimb and three on each hindlimb." - This is not true, this applies only for Diplodocidae except for Barosaurus, which shows only two claws on the pes. Other sauropods can have four claws.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "it may have grown 520 kilograms (1,150 pounds) per year until it reached 70 years of age" - why citing this estimate which contradicts most other studies? The consensus is that sauropods grew much faster, as stated later in the article.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

More specific comments:

• "He classified this group within Sauropoda." - … which he had errected in the same study. I would provide this context.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Most authors still use Sauropoda as the group name." - Is there any author who does not?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation. In 1877, this formation became the center of the Bone Wars, a fossil-collecting rivalry between early paleontologists Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. Because of their rivalry, Marsh and Cope hurried to publish and describe the taxa." – what has this to do with Apatosaurus? I would expect to find some information on which important Apatosaurus fossils were discovered during this time.

I have partially redone that paragraph. IJReid ^discuss 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The length of time taken for Riggs's 1903 reclassification of Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus to be brought to public notice, as well as Osborn's insistence that the Brontosaurus name be retained despite Riggs's paper, meant the entangled Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus became one of best-known dinosaurs." - Do I understand this right, that Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus is one of the most famous dinosaurs only because of the naming issue?

I've reworded this now. IJReid ^discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The AMNH specimen, sometimes assigned to A. ajax" - was this specimen mentioned before? It's out of context. I would at least expect information on the date of discovery.

Mentioned previously now. IJReid ^discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Field Columbian Museum – never heard of this museum. Which city? Link it.

Linked. IJReid ^discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Now this specimen is considered to either be a basal diplodocine or a derived apatosaurine." – You spend a whole paragraph describing the history of discovery of this specimen, and than stating that it is not Apatosaurus at all? It makes the whole section unbalanced, as other specimens are not discussed in that much detail.

Rewrote. The specimen is significant as it is what proved to Riggs that the apatosaurus holotype was a juvenile, and thus the distinguishing features are not valid. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The skull was found a short distance from a skeleton (specimen CM 3018) identified as the new species Apatosaurus louisae, named after Andrew Carnegie's wife Louise." Louise is linked, but Andrew Carnegie is mentioned for the first time and not linked.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1931 at the Yale Peabody Museum, a skeleton was mounted with a skull different from the others. While at the time most museums were using Camarasaurus casts, the Peabody Museum sculpted a completely different skull." There is a lot of redundancy in the two sentences.

Rewrote. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The conclusion was based on a comparison of 477 morphological characteristics across 81 different dinosaurs." Its not clear what "different dinosaurs" mean, could be different species, genera, or individuals. The latter is the case I think.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "However, some are sceptical of the large number of sauropod taxa in the Morrison, instead grouping taxa like Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus together." You are citing a single blog post, the opinion of Donald Prothero. You should at least cite a second to be able to state "some are spectical". The link leads not to the whole blog post, but precisely to a comment made at the end of this blog post. This is no better than a forum comment and is not a reliable source.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2005, Paul Upchurch and colleagues published a study that analyzed the species and specimen relationships of Apatosaurus.[19] Their analysis was revised and expanded with many additional diplodocid specimens in 2015, though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus.[1]" The formulation "though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus" implies that the earlier study by Upchurch et al. found more species to be valid. But this information is not given.

Added info on findings of Unchurch. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The species remained largely unknown; it was overshadowed by A. excelsus and A. louisae." Not my favorite sentence, and I don't really understand it; are you refering to the famousness in popular culture?

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Apatosaurus louisae was named by Holland in 1916 in honor of Mrs. Louise Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie who funded field research to find complete dinosaur skeletons in the American West." Ah, here is the information on Andrew Carnegie. This should be moved to the first mention of Carnegie in the article.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, yet it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny" – The word "yet" implies that it is unusual that the most primitive species is the most distinct. You should explain this.

changed to "and". IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Marsh said it was only provisionally assigned to the genus when he reassigned it to his new genus Morosaurus in 1878.[42] It is now the oldest species of Camarasaurus after being reassigned to that genus.[43]" – I see some problems with the formulations here, please rephrase it to make it more clear (that you are not talking about geologic age, and that Morosaurus is now known as Camarasaurus).

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the paragraph on Apatosaurus minimus, why are the new findings in Tschopps study not incorporated and cited?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've now added the info per the discussion of Tschopp et al., A minimus was found to be a camarasaurid. IJReid ^discuss 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "It was based on postcrania from Portugal. In 1990, this was referred to Camarasaurus …" It should be either "it was" or "these were", but not "this was"?

"this material was" now. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Bakker made A. yahnahpin the type species of a new genus, Eobrontosaurus in 1998,[38] and reclassified it as Brontosaurus yahnahpin in 2015.[1]" Bakker in 2015 reclassified it inside Brontosaurus? Please check this, I thought it was Tschopp et al. who did this.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "large proportion of pits, and fine, subparallel scratches in Apatosaurus" – I guess you are talking about teeth here? Please clarify.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "graze below the level of the body" - perhaps better "graze below the level of the feet"?

I don't see why that would be better. LittleJerry (talk)

Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the sections "Feeding" and "Posture". There is a structural problem: "Feeding" contains a lot of information on neck posture, which should be in the section "Posture" instead. "Posture" contains important information on feeding, which should be within the section "Feeding".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2008, footprints of a juvenile Apatosaurus were reported from Quarry Five in Morrison, Colorado. Discovered in 2006 by Matthew Mossbrucker, these footprints show that juveniles could run on their hind legs in a manner similar to that of the modern basilisk lizard.[56]" - I'm not happy with this statement. The reference is a web link which is not working, so I cannot check the source. For this statement we really need a reliable source. Interpretation of fossil footprints is very tricky. If this speculation has not been published in scientific literature, I would suggest removing it due to lacking notability.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• The whole paragraph "juveniles" does not really contain much precise information, and is much to vague. You are talking of "Slight proportional differences", but what age are you reffering to? Consider writing a section on ontogeny, detailing changes appearing throughout life history. In such a section, you could also place the sentence "One of the first identified growth factors of Apatosaurus was the number of sacral vertebrae, which increased to five by the time of the creatures' maturity.", which currently is out of place.

I think I've fixed this. IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• You mention "Saurophaganax" in the image caption but not in the text.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This are my notes from my first read. I'm sorry for the long list, but I fear that the article still needs a bit of work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All your above comments have been resolved Jens Lallensack. Do you have any further suggestions? IJReid ^discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Second look by Jens Lallensack I think the article has improved a lot already. I still have questions regarding some of my points mentioned above, and found some new ones. Especially, I think that the section "discovery and species" still has major problems. General comments

• The "discovery and species" section seems a bit unbalanced to me. There is an extensive discussion of the skull problem, and some specimens are introduced in some detail. But other important specimens, for example the holotype of A. louisae, are only mentioned shortly (while discussing the skull problem), while others are not mentioned at all. For example, the article contains two images of "Einstein" (BYU 17096), with one image caption stating it is the "most complete specimen known to date". This specimen is not mentioned at all in the "discovery and species" section, and the important information "most complete specimen" only appears in the image caption (without a source).

The specimen is mentioned in the description, now a brief mention in the discovery section as well. IJReid ^discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article recently underwent a split from the article Brontosaurus therefore following Tschopp at al. (2015). Thats fine, but then we need to be consequent. The section "discovery and species" mostly discusses specimens that are not Apatosaurus according to Tschopp et al. The discovery of the real Apatosaurus specimens, on the other hand (CM 3018 and YPM 1861) are barlely discussed, and also the holotype YPM 1860 could be discussed in more detail. What is known from the holotype, where is it now, and is it on exhibit? There currently is much more information on FMNH P25112 in the article, which according to Tschopp is Brontosaurus, than on the Apatosaurus holotype.

More info on ajax holotype, and less on FMNH, but unfortunately, there is not much information on the discovery of ajax, or even on the holotype. IJReid ^discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded an additional source for you, see also the references cited there: [5]. Its very helpful, also for interesting additions in other parts of the article. Please ask me if you need anything more, I will see what I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at it, But I don't know how to incorporate it, as it is kinda defunct what with Tschopp et al reclassifying many specimens mentioned. IJReid ^discuss 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

For a start, you could add the bits on the Apatosaurus holotype and the A. louisae skeletons, that would already be a big improvement I think. I would incorporate the source by myself, but probably will not have time within the FAC window. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've now added more info on the ajax holotype, and some on the louisae. IJReid ^discuss 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the "discovery ans species" section, you give specimen numbers for some specimens but not for all. Consider to add the missing specimen numbers as those will make clear what you are talking about exactly.

Specimen numbers added. IJReid ^discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

more specific points

• A sentence now reads "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature, so they do not only superficially appear closer to diplodocoids." – To be honest, I do not understand the second part of the sentence. Closer to diplodocoids than what?

than macronarians. IJReid ^discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me, I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. They are closer to Diplodocoids because they are mature?? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed, did not really add any descriptive info to the article. IJReid ^discuss 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I find the paragraph starting with "In the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum" still a bit confusing. The skeleton in question is introduced as "a well preserved skeleton of Apatosaurus", but later-on it is stated that it was not Apatosaurus at all. Is there a possibility to reduce confusion by rewording?

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "labeled the Apatosaurus mount of the American Museum of Natural History Brontosaurus." – Here again I find stringency is missing. The section "Discovery and species" starts with describing the first finds of Apatosaurus. Now, we read "the Apatosaurus mount of the AMNH". If you formulate it like this, I would think that this specimen was already mentioned previously. But where? If this specimen was not mentioned previously, it should at least be introduced shortly.

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry" – again, this was not discussed previously, so I have no idea which quarry this would be.

Add discovery info. IJReid ^discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• "After studying this skeleton, Riggs made a proposal. He proposed […]" – This is a prose issue, consider to remove "made a proposal."

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• specimen "BYU 17096" is not mentioned in Tschopp et al. Could it be the same as BYU 1252-18531?

I believe not. The BYU 1252-18531 material apparently does not include a skull, which is certainly present in BYU 17096. It is very well possible that the specimen was simply not evaluated, as with other apatosaurus specimens. IJReid ^discuss 16:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I answered directly below the few ones that still are pending. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Further comments, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Third look by Jens Lallensack Sorry for the delay. I have another look; I still found some inconsistencies in the discovery section, but I hope I can move to "support" quite soon.

• Othniel Charles Marsh, a Professor of Paleontology at Yale University, described and named an incomplete, juvenile skeleton of Apatosaurus ajax in 1877. – Later in the text it is contrarily stated that the skeleton was fairly complete.
• For the sentence on the holotype cited above, I cannot find the statement "juvenile skeleton" in the provided source.
• The holotype of Apatosaurus ajax was found in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, within the Morrison Formation. – This location information is very vague; according to Tschopp et al. (2015), it is from Gunnison County in Colorado.
• The specimen was found in the Morrison Formation in 1898 by Walter Granger. – It was already stated above that all specimens came from the Morrison Formation, no need to repeat information here. Rather, it would be much more helpful to have a more specific location information here.
• A very complete skeleton, BYU 17096, is known from a well preserved skull and skeleton, with a preserved braincase. – This sentence is completely out of context, not integrated in the paragraph to which it is attached to. A bit of additional information can also be helpful: Where and when was it discovered, and in which museum is it now?
• Despite Riggs publication, Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was a strong opposer of Marsh and his taxa, labeled the Apatosaurus mount of the American Museum of Natural History Brontosaurus. – Is this about specimen AMNH 460? This specimen was not introduced before. Perhaps better to quickly introduce it (date and place of discovery) before further detailing about it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these are now fixed. Anything else Jens Lallensack? IJReid ^discuss 01:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I give my Support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support by WereSpielChequers. I've read and reread this several times made a few tweaks and discussed a few inconsistencies.

"Apatosaurus would have attained a mass of 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years. This would imply sauropods had a growth rate of 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) per year." I make 15 times 5 as 75 tons. Is it possible that this is a peak growth year, in which case instead how about "Apatosaurus would have grown to 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years, with growth peaking at 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) in a single year." ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think LittleJerry would be best to resolve this, as he wrote the paleobiology for the most part. IJReid ^discuss 19:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article mentions the theory that the tail generated 200db sounds, but not the theory or possibly former theory that the whip was used as a weapon. Also would it be appropriate to mention the theory that this may have been a way for males to communicate? Sciencenews ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Added weapon theory, but the communication theory should first be in published literature before addition. IJReid ^discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• The lede says "To lighten its bones, Apatosaurus had air sacs that made the bones internally spongelike and full of holes" But the article later describes the limb bones as "robust", I'm assuming that the load bearing lower bones were robust and the upper ones light, but if that were the case the word "some" would be helpful in the lede. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "To lighten its vertebrae...". IJReid ^discuss 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• "only a potentially unnamed genus" Either something is named or unnamed. Could this be "only an unnamed proposed additional genus"? ϢereSpielChequers 05:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've now changed this. IJReid ^discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Any further comments WereSpielChequers? IJReid ^discuss 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No I'm done, thanks to both of you for your work on this ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Since two reviews are already ongoing, I'll wait a bit before doing an in-depth review, but here are a few comments. I did a talk page peer review of this article before the genus split, but much has happened since, so a fresh look is in order. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• "something truly different to any dinosaur" Too hyperbolic.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• "However, the study of Tschopp et al. in 2015 found that the genera were in fact distinct, and the specimen was either the most basal diplodocine, or a specimen of Brontosaurus closer to B. parvus and B. yahnapin than B. excelsus." Why is this text in the beginning of the section? Doesn't make chronological sense to have it away from the main text about the 2015 paper at the bottom.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The text about bipedal juveniles was removed due to insufficient sourcing, but I have read this elsewhere (and we even have a photo9 of the exact tracks), so instead of removing info, another source should be found.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The intro seems a bit scrawny for an article this length.

I merged two small paragraphs. Is that better? FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Since neck vertebrae are such a distinct feature of sauropods, perhaps a photo of an isolated vertebra could be found, perhaps on the SPOW blog, and added left above the description paragraph staring with "Like those of other sauropods, the neck vertebrae are deeply bifurcated"?

Added, an alternate image is File:Apatosaurus ajax YPM1860 lateral.jpeg. IJReid ^discuss 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Very nice! Perhaps they should even be combined to a single (horizontal) image, like the taxobox one at Xenoposeidon? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "This specimen, CMC VP 7180, was found to differ in both skull and neck features from A. louisae, and the specimen was found to have a majority of features related to those of A. ajax." Make clear what these features are, since no other cranial material appears to be known of this species.

Specified neck features. IJReid ^discuss 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• ". Its forelimbs are slightly shorter than its hindlimbs." Why present tense?

Past tense. IJReid ^discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "As in other diplodocids, the last portion of the tail possessed a whip-like structure." But the whip like structure is the last portion of the tail, so it reads a bit oddly. How does the source describe it?

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The caudal vertebra number was said to vary, even within species." This wording makes it seem like hearsay or something.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "and are found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore." Gilmore is long dead.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Apatosaurus, like its close relative Supersaurus, has tall spines," Specify neural spines.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "which may also include Suuwassea, Supersaurus, and Eobrontosaurus" The latter is now Brontosaurus.

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking it should rather be changed to Brontosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm thinking the history section should maybe come before classification, because then much of the confusing stuff is already explained when the reader gets there. Did the same at Ankylosaurus.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "He named the new species Brontosaurus excelsus,[24] meaning "noble thunder lizard", from the Greek brontē/βροντή meaning "thunder" and sauros/σαῦρος meaning "lizard",[22] and from the Latin excelsus, meaning "noble" or "high".[25]" Is this really relevant here after the split?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "those of the Como Bluffs" Is there more than one Como Bluff?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Almost all modern paleontologists agreed with Riggs that the two species should be classified together in a single genus." Which two species? And wouldn't it be more than two?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "They found that A. louisae was the most basal species" and "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, and it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny." repeated information.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "in the November 1997 issue of Discover reported research into the mechanics of Apatosaurus tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft" Why so much detail here?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are weird tense shifts within sentences, some of which I have fixed, but it could be checked throughout.
• "While the subfamily Apatosaurinae was named a while ago" Saying a whikle ago is very informal, and I'm not sure the info is significant enough for the intro here, the article is not about apatosaurinae.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could briefly mention the story of the skull in the intro, as it is one of the most well known facts about the animal.

Added paragraph. IJReid ^discuss 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say that's a bit too much, almost as much detail as in the article. Could be neater to summarise it further, and leave it in the paragraph that already mentions the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've thinned it out a bit now. IJReid ^discuss 14:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• It seems a bit odd that description of the animal starts in the first paragraph of the intro, only to stop and continue in the third paragraph.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why is only one naming authority mentioned in the intro, and not for the other species?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• The intro used the term "spongelike", but this is not used in the article body.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - alright, the article looks good to me now. You've had quite some obstacles (perhaps more to come with further taxonomic revisions), commendable that you kept it on! I guess you can request a source review now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We just have to wait for Jens Lallensack to finish. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). No need for inline cite in lede intro sect unless controversial info likely to be contested. My only other quibble is also with the lede sect, you mention an "Osborn" but don't provide context for the reader, and since the WP:LEAD should be a standalone functional summary, we are left not knowing who is "Osborn". In fact, I see he's not wikilinked until his third appearance in the article text. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt. I have fixed this. IJReid ^discuss 02:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks to nominators for being so quick and responsive to FAC comments. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• 1. 5 Bates - source supports statement in article.
  2. 13 Upchurch - source supports statements in article.
  3. 21 Marsh - source supports statement in article.
  4. 28 McIntosh - source supports the lengthy statement in article.
  5. 38 Marsh - I can't find the information cited in the source though it may be there. The print is very small.
  6. 45 Gallina - I can't find the information cited in the source, but perhaps you could guide me to it.
  7. 54 Taylor - source supports statement in article.
  8. 61 Curry - source supports statement in article.
• In reviewing a sample of sources I found no evidence of close-paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have checked marsh, and the info is on page 503 to 504, which is now specified in the reference. IJReid ^discuss 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dang sorry. I was working on the wrong marsh paper. IJReid ^discuss 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have checked marsh 1878, and it states the info in the article in a note on the bottom of page 414 (page between 413 and 415 labelled 514). IJReid ^discuss 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything else Cwmhiraeth? All the current problems have been fixed. IJReid ^discuss 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's fine. The article is of a high standard but the subject is so technical that I did not feel qualified to judge whether it should become a FA which is why I chose to do a source review instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "during the early Tithonian ages" Why "ages" in the plural?

Done. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The cervical vertebrae of Apatosaurus are less elongated and more heavily constructed than those of Diplodocus". I suggest saying that they are both Diplodocidae (moving the information from the fourth para) to explain why you are comparing them.

Done. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• " Henry Fairfield Osborn disagreed with this association, who went on to mount a skeleton of Apatosaurus with a Camarasaurus skull cast." The grammar has gone wrong here.

Fixed. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "While the subfamily Apatosaurinae was named in 1929, the group was not used validly until an extensive 2015 study." It is probably my ignorance, but what does "validly" mean here? Approval by an official body? The text below seems to say it is just the conclusion of the most recent study.

Linked. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that linking to the Wiktionary definition of valid helps. My query was whether "validly" has a specialised meaning in paleolontology, and if it does not why one study which may be disproved by further discoveries is definitive. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This could help: Valid name (zoology) FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The braincase was placed in a phylogenetic analysis; its morphology was found to be very similar to that of other diplodocoids". "placed in a phylogenetic analysis" reads a bit oddly to me. Perhaps "A phylogenetic analysis found that its braincase is very similar to that of other diplodocoids."

Rearranged. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "the tail transformed into a whip-like structure farther rear" Maybe "towards its end."

Changed. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The holotype of Apatosaurus ajax was found in the in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, within the Morrison Formation.[16] More specifically, the specimen came from Gunnison County, Colorado." Repetition of "in the", and I would merge the two sentences - "found in Gunnison County, in the eastern foothills..."

Merged. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "features now considered to have been widespread among sauropods could be used to distinguish genera" I do not understand this.

Rewrote. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2015, AMNH 460 was found to potentially be Brontosaurus, and in the phylogeny only the holotype was assigned to A. ajax." It is probably my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The holotype of Brontosaurus was assigned to A. Ajax?

Rewrote. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Apatosaurus louisae was named by Holland in 1916 in honor of Mrs. Louise Carnegie" You have already said above that it was named in her honor.

REmoved and merged with following sentence. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Trackways of sauropods like Apatosaurus show their average range was around 20–40 km (12–25 mi) per day" The source is more tentative, saying "perhaps at rates of 25/40 km/day".

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus grew 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year until it was about 70 years old." Is this a serious suggestion? You say below that they lived until about 30 and surely no animal keeps growing until 70.

Yes, quoted from the paper "...yields a revisited growth curve suggesting that Apatosaurus adult mass was reached by 70 years with a maximum growth rate of 520kg/yr". It really seems crazy, but that's what it says. IJReid ^discuss 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I would leave it out. A journal paper which makes a strange claim is not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Crocodiles grow all their life (so do other reptiles), and reach about 70 years, so wouldn't be too far-fetched, given they are their closest relatives along with birds. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The specimens exhibit distinguishing features of Apatosaurus, justifying their referral." What does this mean?

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Apatosaurus fossils have only been found in the upper levels of the formation. Fossils of Apatosaurus ajax are known exclusively from the upper portion of the formation (upper Brushy Basin Member), about 152–151 mya." Repetition of fossils, upper and formation.

Removed repetition. IJReid ^discuss 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Additional Apatosaurus remains are known from younger rocks, but they have not been identified as any particular species." Does not this mean that 152-151 mya is too narrow?

Not unless they have been dated. IJReid ^discuss 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Other vertebrates that shared this paleo-environment include..." No mammals?

None known afaik. Amended. IJReid ^discuss 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.