Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnotaurus/archive1

Add links
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 GrahamColm 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Carnotaurus

[edit]

Carnotaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This dinosaur article was originally written for the German Wikipedia and than rewritten for the English Wikipedia. It has benefited a lot from an exhaustive GAN review by Zad68 and a "prepare for FAC" review by FunkMonk. We are looking forward to suggestions for further improvement. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query by ϢereSpielChequers Nicely written, I've made a couple of tweaks hope you like them, if not tis a wiki.
Did you mean conversative? If so you might want to add another meaning to wiktionary.
Are you sure about the twice as strong as the strongest living animal re the American alligator? I thought the Great White was twice as strong. Did you mean strongest bite of a land animal? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I hope I was able to resolved these issues. For the American Alligator; a 2003 study indeed stated that it has the greatest measured bite force of any living animal. Well, the study calculating the bite force for the Great White Shark is from 2008, so the information just was outdated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to get this moving. I did the GA review and checked the sourcing fairly well. I believe the sourcing meets FA standard, where I had questions I checked other dino FAs and they checked out. Zad68 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) This is a very nicely done article that I'm just about ready to support. But a couple of comments first.[reply]

  • As I noted in one of the edit summaries, references to scholarly results should generally take the present tense: "studies suggest" not "studies suggested." I believe I've changed all instances of this.
Are you sure? In the scientific literature as well as in other recent featured articles (e.g. Nigersaurus, Plateosaurus), the references always take past tense.
I've looked at some of your references and there is no consistent use of past tense although admittedly they don't use the present simple either. Rather, it's generally the present perfect (e.g. "...theropods from the Northern Hemisphere, have been interpreted by Bonaparte to be the result...") One ref I could find on this comes from the American Journal Experts and supports present perfect. Would you have a problem if I flipped it to that tense? Dontreadalone (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking that paper, that's interesting. The paper says that present perfect should only be used when the result of the cited study is still valid. However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV. It also says that, when the study result is no longer considered valid, the past tense should be used. And there is this: "When referring specifically to the methods used in a previous paper, the past tense is best […] it is correct to say "Smith and Anderson sampled …". When searching for the string "suggested" in the featured article Edmontosaurus, most occurences are past tense. So I think it depends: A "suggestion" is a thought that someone has written down some time ago, it should be past tense. But "a comprehensive, much cited analysis" could be cited present perfect because it influences our current research. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV." I can't say I agree with that statement. If we say that one study is right and the other wrong we're committing POV, but simply putting forward results as currently pertinent is not POV. If there were no present validity to the papers we cite then we wouldn't be able to write anything at all. And consider the opposite implication. If we write "some studies suggested the animal was able to hunt down very large prey" then we're situating that research in the past and implying the results may no longer be applicable.
Anyway, we're spending a lot of time on something that's not a deal breaker either way. Would you like me to revert, leave as is, or audit this further with your definitions in mind? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not express myself well, I meant that we cannot use past tense and present perfect tense exactly as suggested by that paper because that would require declaring studies valid or invalid. I would be unhappy with switching to "present perfect only" without good reason. So lets leave it as it is now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed your en dashes in favour of em dashes and then checked the MoS and found that spaced en dashes are still allowable. Apologies. Please feel free to revert that change if you like.
thanks!
  • You see in "Jaw function and diet" where we now have "flexibility (kinesis)" and "back of skull (occiput)"? There's no need to over-do it but I think you might audit this article for other instances where the reader would be similarly well served by having both the lay description and the technical term. There's an awful lot of vocabulary to absorb. I'm unfamiliar with dino articles so perhaps some understanding on this has been arrived at elsewhere.
I have removed one and linked several other technical terms, I hope it is a little bit better now. Most technical terms that still are in the article I'm not aware of an easy lay description though, so it may be better to rely on wikilinks alone. If you could name those sentences that troubled you most, I will try my best getting them more reader friendly, perhaps by adding additional sentences explaining the vocabulary.
I think the blue linking is good and I agree there's no simple way to unpack all the technical terms without making it clunky. So I am satisfied on this point. Isn't "keratinous integument" a wonderful phrase :)? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now just have used "skin" instead of "integument". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain to me how this notes and references sections are working. I don't think I've seen anything like it before. Sometimes you're referencing an entire article in the reference section and sometimes you're referencing specific page ranges within the article in the notes section?
I followed the featured article Plateosaurus here. This system was proposed during the Plateosaurus FAC or review. For most sources, precise page numbers are not necessary (so they only appear in the references section). Those sources that are in need for page numbers (whole books, lengthy papers) appear both in the references section and the extra section.
Hmm. Well, I don't think I'll make it an oppose basis but I can't say I like it. As one example you have "...and an unknown number of caudal vertebrae" linked directly to Bonaparte in the reference section but "...were sculptured with numerous small holes and spikes" linked to a page number in the notes. How did you decide what warranted what? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a better solution. When I started working on the article, I used the rp template to give precise page numbers (see Help:References and page numbers), but people were grumbling about that, so I switched to this style. This style was chosen during the Plateosaurus FAC preparation after lengthy discussions, so I thought it to be the best compromise. Its an advantage that you only have to give precise page numbers when you really need them: In your example, I cited Bonaparte directly without precise page numbers, because the info is spread over half the source (Bonaparte described each vertebra separately). I myself would have no problem with switching back to the rp template, but my WikiProject colleagues have some reservations about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist you go back to it if you've already been pushed in this direction. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is extremely well-balanced with good sized sections. Without committing OR of course, could a couple of extra sentences be added, probably to paleoecology, describing the possible distribution of the genus? To what extent was its territory South America as we now know it versus Gondwana?
We can not say anything about distribution of this dinosaur because there is only one single find. I think it would, most probably, not have been present outside South America because South America was already separated from Africa during the late Cretaceous.
How about we at least say that? Or would you consider it OR? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it. Well done! Dontreadalone (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reading, improving and commenting! I have placed my answers under each of your points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add another comment after supporting, but I noticed a comment on the Bonaparte back links on the talk that still hasn't been addressed. A number of the links are not working. Click on q, r, w or x, for instance, and they don't take you anywhere in the article. No idea why. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have fixed it now! The "name" tags simply were not working at all … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]
  • WP:IMAGELOCATION recommends against left-aligned images at the start of a section
  • Alt text would be nice, but apparently is not required for FA
  • File:Carnotaurus, Chlupáč Museum, Prague-2.jpg: something's funny with the source—apparently the file was derived...from itself?
  • Not necessary for FA, but this graphic could easily be cleaned up, removing artifacts and flattening the colours, which would also produce a smaller file.
  • File:Carnotaurus DB 2.jpg (File:Carnotaurus DB.jpg): licensed CC-BY-2.5 by the uploader, but di the uploader create the original image?
  • Other images seem fine. Several are from the Public Library of Science under Creative Commons licenses

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll answer three of those, since the others seem to be taken care of. As I mentioned in another place, the image alignment issue is not widely agreed upon[2], and as for now has been pretty much dealt with on a case by case basis/left optional. I'm vehemently against the"guideline", but progress is slow on the talk page discussion. As for who created the image listed below, it was a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore, but the image was transferred to Commons by someone else. Since it is PD, I and others have since edited the image. The one that links to itself is likely because both versions were merged, and a bot would then replace the "duplicate link with the kept name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore": I think the "Source" information needs to state the source explicitly
Selfmade or what? The source is Dimitry Bogdanov, the original uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author is listed, so the source is him. Could be replaced with "selfmade". FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[edit]

I looked through two major sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 2, Bonaparte (1990); Mostly good expect:
    • Doesn't mention Carnotaurus length or it being "one of the one of the largest abelisaurids".
The length estimate is stated in the second cite (p. 162 in Juárez Valieri et al. 2010). This paper cites the skeletal diagram in Bonaparte (1990) as the source for this estimation. So I have cited both sources. Now I have removed the Bonaparte (1990) source, to avoid confusion. I have added another source that explicitly states that Carnotaurus is one of the largest abelisaurids.
    • It mentions the bones being destroyed by weathering, not erosion. Wiki article states they are not to be confused.
Yes, you are right, I have corrected that, thank you.
    • There were a couple times (e. g: K, AD) were the source only partially supported a statement but in these cases it was one of two or more cites being used, so I'm assuming the other cites support the rest.
Yes, I usually don't cite more than one source for the same info. If there are two or more cites, the information probably is scattered over these sources (I have checked K and AD).
  • Citiation 6, Mazzetta et al. (1998); All good expect:
    • No comparison with humans/ostriches.
That information is from the second cite (Mazzetta and Farina 1999).

Okay, all good. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in a few cases to review. Although I like dinosaurs as much as anyone, I'm no expert, so this was mainly for prose and accessibility. I copyedited as I went, so pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything. Generally I found the piece well-written and easy to comprehend. Outstanding points:

  • I don't think linking modern-day countries like Argentina is really necessary, probably not continents either...
  • You use the term "best-known" in the lead and several times in the main body. I gather this means "best-understood" (by experts), but "best-known" also sounds like "famous", which I assume is not the sense you're after...
  • Describing the forelimbs as "robust" in the main body sounds odd to me when they're characterised as "possibly functionless" in the lead, but perhaps I've missed something...
  • In Function of the horns you briefly mention and cite all the theories in the first para, then go on to expand upon those theories and cite them again. Although in FAs one is generally expected to cite absolutely everything, certainly at the end of a paragraph, I for one wouldn't object to you leaving the first para uncluttered by all those citations if all the information there is cited in the following exposition, as appears to be the case.
  • No dablinks but you have a few duplinks -- use this script to detect them and see if you really need them.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! Thank you very much for reviewing. I hope I have fixed all issues. I have removed the word "functionless" and used "vestigial" instead, because "functionless" is a over-simplification (the arm will never be entirely functionless). "Robust" and "functionless" sound contradictory, but the arms are functionless in every member of the abelisauridae, and in comparison with other abelisaurids, the arms of Carnotaurus are more robust, or more chunky (despite being even shorter than in other abelisaurids). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that works for me -- happy to support, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One caveat on my support, I just realised -- is this your first FAC, Jens? Someone should conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (fairly standard for first-time nominators) if that's the case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you did -- I was just on my way out when I made the last comment and only took in the heading title, which suggested a source review for formatting and reliability only. No issue then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Carnotaurus/archive1&oldid=859516549"