Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ichthyovenator/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2020 [1].

Ichthyovenator

[edit]
Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on an unusual theropod dinosaur from Laos with undoubtedly one of the most bizarre anatomical structures known for any dinosaur, having two sails on its back. This is the first FA nomination for a dinosaur from southeast Asia and the fourth one for a spinosaur, in hopes of achieving a featured topic status for this unique family of prehistoric animals. The article is well-illustrated, all relevant publications and references have been cited, and it has passed GA review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
Scaled up the Paris museum image and size comparison. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rinchenia_mongoliensis_profile1.jpg: what source was used to create this? Same with File:Patagonykuspuertai.jpg, File:Alioramus_Life_Restoration.jpg, File:Stokesosaurus_by_Tom_Parker.png, File:Carcharodontosaurus.png, File:Neovenator.png, File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg, File:Torvosaurus_tanneri_Reconstruction_(Flipped).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question about this on Lythronax's FA. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All images now have citations, thanks to Lythronaxargestes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Casliber

[edit]
Thanks! Looks good. Forgot to mention I also requested a copyedit at the GOCE[2] if further fixes are needed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nb. I will be claiming points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will probably do a little copy editing as I go through which you will want to check.

Thanks for reviewing! Copyedits are always appreciated but I'll be checking anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually among all other known spinosaurids" doesn't really work. Do you mean something like 'Unusually for a spinosaurid' or 'Unlike other known spinosaurids'?
"Unlike other spinosaurids" definitely looks better and more concise, replaced. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like in today's crocodilians" Optional: → 'as in today's crocodilians'.
More concise, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2 metres (6.6 ft) squared" Suggest using '|ftin'.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MDS BK10-01 — 15" I think that it would be better if the spaced em dash were replaced by 'to' as in the source. If a dash is preferred, use a spaced en dash.
Used "to". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Designated under the specimen number" Should that be 'numbers'?
Yep, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by French palaeontologist Ronan Allain, Tiengkham Xeisanavong, Philippe Richir, and Bounsou Khentavong" Is there a reason why the first of the four is formally introduced and the other three aren't? (Is there a missing 's'?)
Removed "French" and added 's' to palaeontologist. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the third spinosaurid named from Asia" Maybe 'is the third named spinosaurid from Asia'?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology" be in italics?
Probably, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these additional vertebrae were compared with those of other spinosaurids in a 2015 paper by German paleontologist Serjoscha Evers and colleagues." And did they have any opinions on or thoughts about them?
Added "in which they noted multiple similarities with the vertebrae of the African spinosaurid Sigilmassasaurus" and left the anatomical comparisons for the Description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "estimated Ichthyovenator at 8.5 metres (28 ft) in length and weighing 2 tonnes (2.2 short tons)." This doesn't really flow for me. Part of it may be a use of American English - in which case, fine - part is the mixing of tenses - "estimated ... weighing".
Fixed tense consistency and rephrased, does this look better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (9.7 ft)" My preference would be to use ft and in throughout, rather than decimal feet.
Fixed, I'll keep an eye out for this in other articles I'm working on as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link processes.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increased in height from the top and bottom" I am not sure what this means.
Removed "from the top and bottom", it was rather unecessary. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on its back and hip" "hip" or 'hips'?
Meant 'hips', fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 metre (3 ft 3 in) long" "metre" 1. is the article in US or UK English? 2. The MoS says that common units should be given in full only at first use, and thereafter abbreviated.
It's in UK English, thus "metre", "palaeontologist", etc. are used throughout. Abbreviated all following units, forgot to do this! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sacral vertebrae of the hip" "hip" or 'hips'?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the spine of the first sacral vertebra is with about 21 centimetres (8.3 in) much lower" This doesn't make sense. (Delete "with"?)
Removed "with" and rephrased to "as the spine of the much lower first sacral vertebra is about 21 cm (8.3 in), creating a sudden hiatus in the profile of the sail." ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were confined only to above the base of the neural spines" I don't think that we need "only".
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and longer compared to the pubic bone" Optional: would this work better with "compared" → 'in proportion'?
'in proportion' definitely works better now that I think of it. Replaced. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "away from the centre of attachment" → 'from away from the centre of attachment'?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lower end of the pubis had L-shape" 'was L-shaped'? 'han an L-shape'?
Changed to 'was L-shaped'.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pubic apron (expanded lower end of the pubis)" Possibly '(the expanded ... '?
Added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fenestra.
Linked and explained with (opening). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ischia in the lead.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "accompanying pubis being comparatively shorter to it than in" Optional: 'accompanying pubis being comparatively shorter in comparison to it than in'.
Changed to "accompanying pubis being shorter in comparison to it than in". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely for information, a possibly easier alternative to <nowiki/>' is {{'}}.
Thanks! Hadn't looked at the article in source code view much so I hadn't noticed. Replaced in all instances anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that spinosaurids were also scavengers and hunters of larger prey" reads as if spinosaurids were hunters of prey larger than themselves. Is this what was intended?
Meant "larger prey than fish", fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an indeterminate sauropod, iguanodontian, and neoceratopsian" Should that be 'and indeterminate sauropods, iguanodontians, and neoceratopsians'?
I thought of that, but since only one unknown taxon has been identified for each of these groups thus far, I kept this wording. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to see the relevance of the Tangvayosaurus image. Is there some way of making this more explicit?
Added "another dinosaur from the Gres superieurs Formation". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", the former from which fossils of theropods (including spinosaurids), sauropods, iguanodontians, and freshwater fish have also been recovered" Suggest '; , from the former of which fossils of theropods (including spinosaurids), sauropods, iguanodontians, and freshwater fish have also been recovered'. Note use of semi colon.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thus preceding the breakup of Laurasia" "preceding" → 'preceded'.
Removed unecessary "and thus". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look fine to me. I have done a little more copy editing for you to check. And I spotted one last decimal foot:

Copyedits look good, thanks! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2.95 m (9.7 ft)" |ftin?
Must've missed that, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My nit picking above notwithstanding, this is a well written article which so far as a I can see ticks all of the FA boxes. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Nice to see you back!

Glad to be back and thanks for reviewing! Always good to have an expert onboard, especially for the more technical parts of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the length ratio between the main body of the pelvis and the pubes and ischia being higher – this could be worded much simpler, something like "with the ilium, the uppermost bone of the pelvis, being proportionally longer than both the pubis and ischium". Another issue was that you have "main body of the pelvis" in singular but pubes and ischia in plural.
Reworded and fixed inconsistency. Definitely reads better now, I have a tendency to write overly complicated sentences like these. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2014, a Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology abstract concerning the genus was published by Allain. This abstract – I suggest to just write "In a 2014 conference paper" or "… abstract" without the journal; (more relevant would be the conference).
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, this abstract has not been formally published as an academic paper as of 2020. – Conference abstracts are independent of papers. And the abstract was formally published. This could be removed.
Yeah, I only just learned that recently. Removed and also merged lower two paragraphs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • interzygapophyseal laminae – I would add an explanation in brackets, at least explaining laminae.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • air pockets – I would use "excavations" instead, or, if you want to keep the hint to the PSP, "excavations that were filled by air sacs in live".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parapophysis (a process that articulated with the capitulum of the ribs) of the first dorsal increased in height from the top and bottom – It is not clear that you compare with the cervicals here.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • co-ossified (fused) – you already used "fused" in a sentence before, so "co-ossified" can be removed here.
Removed, simpler terminology is better anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (articular surfaces with the neural arch of the preceding vertebra) – I would remove "with the neural arch" as I feel that it confuses more than it helps. It sounds like that the prezygapophysis would not be located on the neural arch.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The postacetabular ala (front expansion) was much longer than the preacetabular ala (rear expansion) – isn't it vice versa? pre -> front and post -> rear?
Whoops, fixed! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the hind rim of the pubic bone, two openings, the obturator foramen and a lower fenestra (opening), were not fully closed, making them into notches. – "fully closed" means that the opening is filled completely and thus disappeared. I don't think this was the intention. Instead maybe "were open and notch-like" or "were not fully surrounded by bone".
Changed to "were open and notch-like". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you could please add sternum, centrodiapophyseal fossae, spinopre- and spinopost and spinoprezygapophyseal fossae, prespinal and postspinal fossae, as well as interzygapophyseal laminae, that'd be great. I had a lot of trouble overall with the vertebral terminology in this one, and finding good definitions for these terms isn't easy. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, American researcher Mickey Mortimer pointed out that a spinosaurid skeleton – We should somehow indicate that this was not pointed out in an academic paper (what is what the reader would assume), but in a mailing list. But this begs the question if it is relevant in the first place. And if a conference abstract counts as "confirmed" is a matter of perspective as well, I feel this is given undue weight. Perhaps just mention the conference abstract and keep both citations, but remove the part with Mortimer?
Had some doubts about this myself, so this definitely cleared things up. Removed and re-ordered, hopefully looks better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the sister species of a clade – more precisely call it "sister taxon"?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of systematic section: First it is about systematics, then autapomorphies, and then systematics again. The Autapomorphies seem out of place. Maybe discuss them first and only then start with the systematic position. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged and also moved around and swapped some images, I think that's much better now. Let me know. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼
  • She thus placed Ichthyovenator as incertae sedis (of uncertain taxonomic affinity) within the clade Orionides, pending description of the new material, which she states will likely confirm Ichthyovenator's spinosaurid identity. – A very difficult one. Let me explain my thoughts: This cites the personal webpage of the author, who describes herself as hobby paleontologist. Therefore it is, strictly speaking, not a reliable source according to WP:Reliable Sources. On the other hand, WP:RS clearly states who is to be considered an expert: someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". And this is the case here. The webpage, however, itself is not cited in peer-reviewed papers, which means that it has no direct impact on academic research – it is thus also less relevant. An edge case I would say. But there is another, serious issue I have with this particular sentence: "She thus placed" implies a formal decision, and those are only possible in an academic publication. This should be, if kept, carefully reworded, possibly by mentioning that this is published on a web page. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a rather delicate situation, I had some doubts myself over whether this should be kept on the page and whether I'd presented it appropriately. Just did a rewording attempt[3] based on your suggestions, let me know if it's any better. If not, I'll be fine with simply removing this part from the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, it is likely that spinosaurids were also scavengers and hunters of larger prey than fish. – I'm wondering if this is precisely reflecting the sources. "Larger prey than fish", is this referring to the juvenile Iguanodon? Why would a juvenile Iguanodon be larger than large fish, does the source say so? Or is this rather a hint on the spinosaur feeding on a sauropod, but if so this should also be mentioned and made clear? Shouldn't it be iguanodontid in any case, can it really be referred to Iguanodon after the recent taxonomic revisions? Shouldn't it be "scavengers or hunters" instead of "scavengers and hunters", or where is the evidence for hunting?
Took a closer look at the sources again and changed the paragraph accordingly. Changed to "scavengers or hunters", Iguanodon to iguanodontid, and added a mention of the sauropod feeding association. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackways of sauropod and ornithopod dinosaurs – that would surprise me. Both sources only mention tracks, not trackways, and they also mention theropod tracks. Why are the theropod tracks are left out, aren't those even more relevant to this theropod article here? We need to be more precise.
Changed to "tracks". Must've missed that note about the theropod footprints, added! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it may also be possible that spinosaurids already had a cosmopolitan distribution before the Middle Cretaceous, preceding the breakup of Laurasia from Gondwana. However, the authors noted that more evidence is needed to test this hypothesis – the "Though" at the beginning of the sentence irritates me a bit, and I'm not sure if "this hypothesis" is referring to the faunal interchange hypothesis or the early cosmopolitan distribution hypothesis.
Yeah, I seem to have a knack of using words like "though" unnecessarily, as previous copyedits by the GOCE to articles I've written have let me know. Removed. "This hypothesis" was referring to the cosmopolitan distribution sentence. I took out the period before "however", which seems to be what was contributing to the ambiguity. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • across Pangaea, before its breakup starting in the Late Jurassic, – Pangaean breakup started much earlier though?
Whoops, not sure how I ended up wording it like that. Removed "its breakup starting in". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2019, Spanish palaeontologist Elisabete Malafaia and colleagues also indicated a complex biogeographical pattern for spinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous, based on anatomical similarities between Ichthyovenator and Vallibonavenatrix – You should add where Vallibonavenatrix was found, as this is about biogeography. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, hadn't realized I didn't include anywhere on the article where that genus was from, added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reference numbers based off of this version.

  • 2: This doesn't use a cite template, which results in some inconsistencies (e.g., the "and"). Also, hyphen rather than en dash, and the journal name should be given in full.  Fixed
  • 3–4: These are the same.  Fixed
  • Generally speaking, there's inconsistency in whether full first names, or just initials, are given. I always recommend full first names, since—as someone who tends to write articles involving old topics—figuring out what the initials stand for decades later can be a real pain. But either way, best to be generally consistent.
Added author first names to all citations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing from 20 & 25. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also inconsistency in date formats: "June 2017" in one place, for example, and "2019-03-04" in another.  Fixed
  • 6: Volume #? Issue #? Page #s?
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Is "e1323" really the page range?  Fixed
  • 8: What's going on with the author names (or name) here? "S., Paul, Gregory" makes no sense. Also, are you citing a chapter in particular? And ISBN could stand to be hyphenated.
Fixed all. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this citing a particular entry/chapter/article within the work? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added entry name. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9: Only last names given (and in the same "last=" parameter). Also, ISBN or OCLC?  Fixed
  • 10: What does "Cretaceous Research. in press: 104221" mean? Volume/issue/page # info missing. No cite template used, leading to inconsistencies.  Fixed
Removed page number field since it this citation is used to reference info on all pages of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12: What is "PLOS One"? Is the page range really "e0187070"?  Fixed
  • 13: Is the "Archives of the DINOSAUR Mailing List" a reliable source? In any event, there's no date, and "dml.cmnh.org" is the website's URL, not its title.
It is sometimes used in dinosaur articles to cite informal discussions between experts in the field (most often about uncontroversial facts), but removed it anyways as it's not needed and the citation next to it has all the same information. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: What is SVPCA? How many other authors are there?
Added other author names. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16: Is this a reliable source? Retrieval date?
Mortimer has co-authored published palaeontological papers, and the sentence clarifies that the hypothesis she proposed was informal. Added retrieval date. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18–19, 22: Same questions as 12.  Fixed
  • 27–28: What are the "Supplementary Information" links?
Not needed, removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30: How many other authors are there? Also, there are a whole bunch of inconsistencies created by not using a cite template here. Finally, an en dash should be used instead of a hyphen.
Added other author names, en dash added by Jonesey. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32: Volume #? Issue #?  Fixed

Other than those queried above, sources appear to be of appropriate quality. Spot checks not carried out, although I can do that if needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions answered, Usernameunique. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed remaining comments, Usernameunique and Ealdgyth. The article also received its GOCE copyedit a few days ago[4], which I made some final tweaks to. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Always loved some dinos as a child years and years ago.

Lead

  • is a genus of spinosaurid theropod dinosaur that MOS:SEAOFBLUE here.
Removed theropod since it is less specific. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lived in what is now Laos in Link Laos; don't believe it's too well known to unlink it.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • South-East Asia, sometime between 125 to 113 million Per MOS:OVERLINK major land areas shouldn't be linked.
Looks like it was added in the copyedit, removed overall since Laos is now linked anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • been between 8.5 to 10.5 m (28 to 34 ft) long Per MOS:UNITNAMES write metre fully here.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weighed 2 to 2.4 tonnes (2.2 to 2.6 short tons) Link both tons and no long tons?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike other known spinosaurids Link spinosaurids.
See above, linked theropod lower in the lead instead. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and naming

  • surface area of less than 2 m2 (22 sq ft) Per MOS:UNITNAMES write metre fully here.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is derived from the Greek word ἰχθύς (ichthys), "fish" Per MOS:EGG change Greek to Old Greek.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the Latin word venator, "hunter" Unlink Latin per MOS:OVERLINK.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • named spinosaurid dinosaur from Asia after the Thai genus Link Thai.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • weighed 2 tonnes (2.2 short tons) No long ton and link both tons.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its front corner formed a 3 cm (1.2 in) narrow process Compound Adjective here.
Hyphenated. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 54.6 cm (21.5 in)-high spine Why is there a hyphen here? And MOS:UNITNAMES also aplies here.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 92 cm (36 in)-long ilium of the pelvis was blade-like, and longer in proportion to the 65 cm (26 in)-long pubic Remove the hyphens at the units per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! All comments answered CPA-5. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:56, 10 May 2020 (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/Ichthyovenator/archive1&oldid=958292927"