Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diodorus scytobrachion/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [1].

Diodorus scytobrachion

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a silesaurid, a member of a group of strange dinosaur-relatives, which may actually be dinosaurs themselves according to the latest research. This particular genus isn't known by much, so the article covers everything that has been published about it, and gives a bit of a wider look at its group for context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the artist, Fanboyphilosopher. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited the source I consulted when creating the diagram. As for color, I am of the opinion that color-coding a skull diagram is much more useful for the purpose of visually presenting information on the size, shape, and relationships between individual bones. A black-and-white diagram would not be as immediately impactful for that purpose. For the sake of color-blind readers, I've investigated my coloration style in a color blindness simulator ([2]). Most colors can still be discriminated in dichromatic views, and even when there are exceptions the diagram is still useful thanks to the context afforded by the legend (top-to-bottom and left-to-right in the columns correspond to front-to-back in the skull). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The legend doesn't say that, so if a reader is unable to distinguish colours how would they understand that context? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will add that information to the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another diagram has also been added:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not, precisely, a review, but I checked for Lint errors and duplinks, and found none. That said, the map & cladogram (I assume meant to be side-by-side?) in the Classification section are instead a map with massive whitespace on the left, followed by a cladogram with massive whitespace on the right. Could another arrangement be found, that doesn't leave so much whitespace? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, doesn't look like that to me, must be different settings. Could you show a screenshot? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed by SilverTiger shrinking the map. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

As a lifelong dinosaur fan, I'll take a look at this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't feel cheated if it turns out not to have been a dinosaur after all! FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still holding out hope for Diodorus. Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Diodorus Skeletal.svg - is it feasible to provide a key for the color-coding of the remains noted in the diagram?
Yep, added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from Argentina were recognized until the 21st century, when their taxonomic diversity, and geographic and stratigraphic range expanded." - not sure what the best way to fix this is, but the current phrasing could be read as implying that the dinosauramorphs were expanding their geographic range in the 21st century
Tried with: "were recognized until the 21st century, when their larger taxonomic diversity, and geographic and stratigraphic range was realized". FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly relevant to this article, but I found myself trying to figure out if the Meckelian groove begins in the front and goes to the back, or vice versa
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's defined that way, as it's pretty subjective to claim what end it "starts". But you can see it here:[5] Usually, you'd probably say it begins at the front, as skulls are mostly described from front to back, but still pretty subjective I think. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources all appear to be reliable
  • Some heavy reliance on Kammerer in places, but I don't think it's avoidable for this topic matter
Yeah, no other sources have dealt with this genus in depth. Probably due to its scrappiness. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few spot checks, but not many, because I'm pretty tuckered out in RL. Not seeing any significant issues here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all the above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Late Carnian – make sure that substages are always non-capitalised (i.e., "late Carnian") since they are informal.
I see, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While these elements were not associated with each other – maybe add "found" to make the meaning clearer?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • stance – "posture" is the more accurate term, as "stance" typically means something else (the limb in support phase).
Done, though the source said "stance". FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metatarsal is elongated – Add "only known" to make clear that there were more than one metatarsal?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significantly, a widespread group – Do we need "significantly", I am not sure what it adds. I expect that all information provided here are significant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • omnivory – needs a link
Done, also linked carnivorous, though a more well-known term. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their 2012 phylogenetic analysis, Kammerer and colleagues both coded the Diodorus holotype alone and the holotype and the assigned specimens together, with the results of both analyses being identical, which indicates the inclusion or exclusion of the assigned material does not alter the classification of this taxon significantly. – Not sure about this sentence. First, it is a very ling and complicated sentence that might be difficult to understand without a background in phylogenetics. Second, it does not fully make sense to me, because "which indicates" implies some generalisation but I think this can only valid for this particular analysis. Maybe just keep it short and simple and write they "obtained identical results when all known material or just the holotype was included". I don't think this looses any information.
Done, though I added the name "when all known Diodorus material". FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Meckelian groove extends to the front of the dentary through its beak-like tip – Does this refer to Sacisaurus or silesaurids in general?
Sacisaurus, added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While fossilized footprints had earlier indicated the presence of dinosauromorphs in the Timezgadiouine Formation – Worth to cite the paper describing these tracks?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but along with Silesaurus itself, to be the only unambiguous members of Silesauridae. – Needs a comma after "but" for the intended meaning?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I like the amount of backgound information given in the "Classification" section, even if much of it is not precisley about this taxon but about Silesauridae in general. Since this is the first well-made article on the group, this is necessary. In the future, if Silesauridae might be a featured article, this part could be shortened, but for now, providing this extensive background is important.
Nice to know! FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed all the above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The genus name honors the legendary king Diodorus" No wikilink for this person? If he was a king, would he be able to pass WP:NPOL?
Probably, but Diodorus goes to the other person of that name who is already linked, so I don't know what it should be disambiguated as. But tried with Diodorus (king) for now... FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the paleontologists Rafał Piechowski and Jerzy Dzik" is the latter Jerzy Dzik? If so, wikilink.
Good find, linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot-checked the lede and all information is in the article.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the legendary king Diodorus". Suggest "legendary" → 'mythological'.
I'm a bit unsure, because it is followed by the word "mythographer" which is a bit samey, and reads a bit silly to me together. Also, the source says "legendary", and the two are not necessarily the same. On a related note, funny that your latest FAC that I reviewed also involved a Syphax, so I wonder where the line between mythological and legendary (which could be real people) lies? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. "My" Syphax is a real historical figure, I assume named in honour of the god. My understanding is that "legendary" relates to either real people - Hannibal or some of his feats may be referred to as legendary - or to those who may be real, or at least composites - eg King Arthur or Robin Hood. Mythological refers to people or things who/which didn't and/or couldn't have existed - eg Sufax and his offspring.
Changed to mythological, I guess here it's not someone who ever existed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link clade in the lead.
Already linked in first sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "while some later studies" → 'while some more recent studies', both lead and main article.
Hmmm, I have an aversion to using the word "recent" in any articles. It is relative to now, while "later" is relative to whatever is mentioned. But if this article stands in 30 years, will those studies really be "more recent" in any meaningful way? They will still be "later" in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call, but I really don't get it. In 30 years they'll be "more recent" in just the same way that they'll be "later", but for 30 years readers won't have had to stop and think about just what is being conveyed.
Thinking about it a bit more, my other problem with it is that it makes it seem as if the consensus changed, when it is just additional possibilities, not "replacements" of the original theory. "More recent" can seem like it's a qualitative description, when it really shouldn't be. I was thinking it could say "subsequent" instead, but that's just a fancy way of saying "later"... Or maybe it's better at making it less time-based, so I tried with subsequent. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assigned to Silesaurus contains beetles and shows". 'contain', no "s".
Ah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if the lead contained an age in years as to when these lived.
Ugh, not sure how I missed that, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Meckelian groove is distinct from that of other silesaurids in that it expands in height towards the back, and reaches 40% of the dentary's height by the fourth tooth position. The dentary is distinct in being bowed at the underside." "... is distinct ... is distinct ..." Optional, but perhaps rephrase one?
Shook up a bit in both places. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known metatarsal is elongated and as in Silesaurus and has a robust rim for attachment of extensor muscles." A surplus "and"?
Sure, snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered so far, with some follow up questions. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A widespread group was first recognized upon the discovery of Silesaurus from Poland, similar features to which were later identified in new and previously discovered taxa from the Americas and Africa." This seems a little clunky to me. Possibly the one sentence is trying to do too much?
Tried to rephrase it like this: "A previously unknown group was first recognized upon the discovery of Silesaurus from Poland, and features similar to this animal were later identified in new and previously discovered taxa from the Americas and Africa." Still long, but possibly clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to lacking some important features". Maybe 'due to their lacking some important features'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the late Anisian stage of the early Middle Triassic". Do we have any idea as to how long ago this was?
Added approximate number. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the former as sister taxon". 'with the former as a sister taxon'?
Yeah, why not. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supports that this group had a cosmopolitan distribution". Is it just me, or does that read a bit as shorthand? Ie, would 'which supports the theory that' or 'which supports the hypothesis that' or some other expansion be a little clearer?
Added "the idea". FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temporally long-ranged". 'temporally widespread' or 'temporally widely distributed'? (Long-ranged means something different.)
The source says " long-ranging", so changed to that, since widespread and widely distributed seems a bit more physically spatial. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggested that basal dinosauromorphs were widespread, temporally long-ranged, and common rather than rare and restricted in time and space in Triassic fossil assemblages, and that this pattern had only been recently recognized due to specimens being misidentified as true dinosaurs and the rather low potential of these small-bodied, delicate animals being preserved." A long sentence, with a lot happening in it; and so many "and"s that I am honestly unsure what some of it is trying to say.
Tried to split in two here, if that makes it better: "Triassic fossil assemblages. They speculated that this pattern". FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also found Diodorus and Sacisaurus to be sister taxa". I don't think "also" is needed here. As well as what?
Also as in earlier studies, but probably not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisting of basal ornithischians instead of a sister group to all of Dinosauria." Maybe 'being a sister group' for clarity?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used the name Prionodontia for the clade only including traditional ornithischians to the exclusion of "silesaurs"." Is it me, or does this need tweaking?
Changed to: "for the clade that only includes traditional ornithischians to the exclusion of "silesaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also made new interpretations for the origin in time and geographic distribution". Should "for" be 'of'?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2014, Diodorus was one". "By" or 'In'?
Here I say by, because it is likely there will be many more discovered down the line, so this way it doesn't have to be updated. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other fossil animals known from the t5 assemble". Suggest "t5" → 'this'.
Done. Also fixed "assemble" to "assemblage", oops. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stuff. Lovely writing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the rest. Some hard ones! FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

[edit]

Looking at Special:Permalink/1148581250.

  • Footnote 2 does not have complete bibliographical information. What is the website you cite, and why is it reliable? (You probably want to link Thomas R. Holtz Jr. to convince me of the reliability). Is this from a book?
It is an online appendix of this[6] book, which lists additional animals described since the book was published. I've used this citation style for it in other FACs, but if there are better ways of citing it I'll gladly implement it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to at least archive it, fix the access-date (the file says it is from 2012-01-13, so an access date of 2012-01-12 looks weird) and to add the website and author link. Even better (in my personal opinion) would be to note that this belongs to a published book in a way. I suggest the following (needs filling out, and please feel free to ignore the book part if you disagree):
  • Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2012). "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Appendix". Department of Geology, University of Maryland. Archived from the original (PDF) on YYY. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archive-date= (help). Online appendix to Holtz, Thomas R. (2007). Dinosaurs : the most complete, up-to-date encyclopedia for dinosaur lovers of all ages. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7. OCLC 77486015.
I am happy with this from the "reliable sources" point of view. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion looks good, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 8: does not look like a "journal" to me (no pages/issues)
I'm not sure how exactly to classify it, the parent page says "This online Reference Collection forms the definitive source for those entering, researching or teaching in any of the many disciplines making up this interdisciplinary area of study. This resource is designed to serve as an in depth and comprehensive compendium of Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences."[7] That said, it appears to be reliable, connected to a journal publisher, and with well-known authorship. I tried the cite website template instead, though I think the journal template might be a better fit. All it is used for is a date in million of years. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, when I expanded the citations automatically afterwards, it changed the template to "cite book" and added an ISBN, so I guess that's what I'll go with. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a book formatted online like a journal, changed to book template and added book-specific parameters. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out ref 6 was from the same book, so changed too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 has non-abbreviated middle names, 15 has a mixture. 14 does not give a middle name although the doi leads to a page that has information. Would be even prettier to unify these.
Abbreviated all (most of these are auto-generated through the DOIs). FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19 still had un-abbreviated names. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed two more citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 Dias-da-Silva with an uppercase S
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 Do we know the first names of Jalil? There should be no space in N.-E.
Seems to be Nour-Eddine Jalil, added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources used (except possibly no. 2) look fine to my non-expert eye. Will do a few spotchecks next. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1h checks out
  • 2 checks out
  • 3a/4a: seems fine, but 4 uses "folidont" not "foliodont", check spelling
"Foliodont" gets many more hits on Google and Google scholar, so I believe "folidont" is either a typo or uncommon spelling. Pinging Jens Lallensack for professional input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking it up, "folidont" seems to be the correct spelling. It also gets more hits in Google scholar when using quotation marks to search for the exact word ("foliodont" only gets two hits). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed to folidont then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 seems fine

The level of paraphrasing is acceptable (avoiding the specialised terminology would lead to inaccuracies, so some similarities are visible). Overall mostly minor formatting queries as detailed above plus one query about spelling. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, only suggestions for 2 and 19 are left now, see above. (Not venturing an opinion on the foli(o)dont). —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine now. I was about to complain that 22 is lacking an issue number but it seems that Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology stopped having "issues". So pass. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2023 (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/Diodorus_scytobrachion/archive1&oldid=1149235036"