Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baryonyx/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 23:46, 14 November 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baryonyx is a well-known dinosaur, and one of the best preserved animals of its kind from the UK. It is also the first dinosaur that showed direct evidence of having eaten fish, and its physical features were considered very unusual at the time it was discovered. I have summarised most of the scientific literature about the animal, and presented both sides of various controversies surrounding it. It is also the first dinosaur of its kind (spinosaurid) to have its article nominated for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose....as a wikiproject dinosaurs member though I haven't really edited this article. I reviewed this at GAN and tried to be as nitpicky as possible. I think we're there and if not it's pretty close. However my familiarity with the stuff might mean I miss accessibility issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by IJReid
[edit]I agree with Casliber that the quality of the article Is really excellent, but I have noticed a few things that could use correcting. IJReid discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It may also have been an active predator of larger prey and a scavenger, as it also contained bones of a juvenile Iguanodon" also is redundant.
- Which one? Both, or the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First. How about "It may have been an active predator as well, as ..." IJReid discuss 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reason for the first "also" is to underline that it did not only eat fish, but may also have actively hunted larger prey. Also because it is not sure whether the Iguanodon was hunted or scavenged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah I guess, leave it as is then. IJReid discuss 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps others will bring it up... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah I guess, leave it as is then. IJReid discuss 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reason for the first "also" is to underline that it did not only eat fish, but may also have actively hunted larger prey. Also because it is not sure whether the Iguanodon was hunted or scavenged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First. How about "It may have been an active predator as well, as ..." IJReid discuss 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? Both, or the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "A previous estimate was 10 m (32 ft)" seems a little short, any info on when? maybe merge with previous sentence?
- Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "...of the dentary of the mandible..." of the is redundant, maybe "...of the dentary bone, in the mandible..."
- Replaced with "in". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The alveoli of the dentary..." should be "The alveoli of the remainder of the dentary..." as the rosette was part of the dentary.
- Doesn't the rest of the sentence explain this: ", but the first four were larger than the rest" First four: those in the rosette.
- I'd move this sentence above the detail on the rosette then, so it doesn't break up the flow. IJReid discuss 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rejigged the sentence, but it is placed where it is because the prior text is about alveolus size. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd move this sentence above the detail on the rosette then, so it doesn't break up the flow. IJReid discuss 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the rest of the sentence explain this: ", but the first four were larger than the rest" First four: those in the rosette.
- Link United Kingdom as first mention.
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would change mentions of Britain to United Kingdom or vice versa to make it more standard.
- "Except for the mid neck vertebrae, all the skeletal elements of this specimen are also represented in holotype NHM R9951" the wording here makes it seem like the Iberian remains are more complete, with the holotype lacking mid-neck vertebrae. Is this correct?
- Other way around, will try to reword... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Other way around, will try to reword... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be consistent, link authors full names at first mention (eg. Buffetaut)
- He doesn't appear to have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that situation I would simply have the full name, but not a link. IJReid discuss 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, was there already. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that situation I would simply have the full name, but not a link. IJReid discuss 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't appear to have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is it. This is an excellent article and all my queries are very minor. IJReid discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, who is this "Angela" mentioned in Paleobiology? IJReid discuss 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, fixed! Angela is Milner, but it should say Charig... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, Support from me now. IJReid discuss 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Cas Liber
[edit]Using this version for numbering:
Some author initials are spaced (FN 7 and others) and some are unspaced (FN 21) in the references - choose one and align them all
- Found three without spaces, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN 1...abbreviation gone crazy?
- Heh, was copied from another page, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 22 - material faithful to source.
Crap, I forgot about this, anyway using this version for ref numbering....now where was I....
- FN 18 - material faithful to source. not paraphrased. ok.
- FN 24 - material faithful to source.
- FN 5 used 4 times - all material faithful to source
Okay spot check all looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
[edit]All OK, just 2 ignorant bonus questions:
- File:Baryonyx BW.jpg - I read up a bit about the artist Nobu Tamura, but as a layman I am still not sure: is this an "artistic" or a "scientific" restoration - or something in-between? Maybe worth clarifying in the image caption.
- File:Baryonyx_by_durbed.jpg - same as above: art or science?
- All images are CC or PD and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
- Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review. Both are anatomically correct, and art and science are not mutually exclusive, by the way... See paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose is clear, seems complete and well organised. I haven't noticed any major problem, so I believe this article is FA worthy. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Grapple X
[edit]I'm not particularly familiar with the relevant convention but are we okay to have "UK" abbreviated from the first mention?
- Spelled out. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few duplicate links throughout; User:Ucucha/duplinks is a handy way of rooting these out but it can throw up false positives so be careful.
- Removed a bunch, except for those in the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange) compared to a human" identifies the image in terms of colour alone, which is best avoided. Perhaps "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange, second from right) compared to a human" would work?
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the mature animal may have been much larger (as attested by the size of the related Spinosaurus)" -> A quick size comparison may help here, clicking through it seems Spinosaurus reached 15m, perhaps note this within the brackets, after "Spinosaurus".
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a bit of inconsistency with how proper anatomical terms are used—at times, you use the proper term then bracket a common name afterwards ("scapulae (shoulder blades)", "pleurocoels (hollow depressions)"), but it's also seen the other way around ("a large claw (ungual bone)", "reduced its weight (skeletal pneumaticity)"). I don't see this as a particularly troublesome point, however.
- Yeah, the order is a bit arbitrary, as I felt it would "flow" best... FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall I'm happy with the article, and can support it in its current state, as most of my critiques are minor. GRAPPLE X 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will fix the issues now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.