Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irritator/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2019 [1].

Irritator

[edit]
Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a carnivorous theropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil, with one of the most peculiar namesakes for an extinct animal. It is my second FA nomination of a spinosaurid and, if it passes, will become Wikipedia's third spinosaur FA. I expanded and improved it over the course of nearly three months as part of a joint project, with FunkMonk's FAC of the contemporary Thalassodromeus, to pay tribute to the palaeontological fossils lost in the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro fire this year. The article has passed its GA and DYK nominations, received a peer review, and been copyedited by the GOCE. Beforehand, I'd also like to make clear that the two blog articles cited[2][3] are written by Darren Naish, a published palaeontologist who is respected in his field. So I think it should be fine in regards to WP:RS. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Lusotitan

[edit]

I have no doubt this will pass, but I'll still do a run-through to see if there's any small details I could suggest improvements on. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To start, the "palaeoecology" section should be "palaeoenvironment" in this case, similar to the Baryonyx article. The subjects of what it preyed upon and its aquatic habitat preference are both fundamentally questions of its ecology, so excluding them from a "palaeoecology" is out of place. In some articles with sprawling palaeobiology sections on the physiology of the taxon, like Tyrannosaurus and Edmontosaurus, I advocate for just moving the sections to the latter header. But here it's the entire palaeobiology section, and since there's an obvious divide of the way the animal interacts with its environment as opposed to what that environment was like, simply re-naming the last section as was done for the Barynoyx article would seem like the appropriate change.
You make a good argument. I changed the header name, though with one alteration; I named it "Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography", as was done for Ceratosaurus, since it also discusses biogeographical implications. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments, Lusotitan? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give a review Saturday, currently buried under schoolwork. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lusotitan, did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding with review:

  • The genus name comes from the word "Irritation", reflecting the feelings of paleontologists who found the skull had been heavily damaged and altered by the collectors. - irritation should not be capitalized, as it is a single word and not a full statement in quotes.
Whoops! fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is known from a nearly complete skull found in the Romualdo Formation. - I would say "Romualdo Formation of the Araripe Basin" to avoid any confusion when it's said both it and Angaturama come from the Basin in the next paragraph.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species name challengeri is an homage to the fictional character Professor Challenger. - using the species name alone without the genus name is generally considered improper, but it's not a huge deal either way (i.e. I leave it to the preference of the author); additionally, it might be worth saying that Challenger is from the works of Doyle, as opposed to just saying he's "a fictional character", but again I leave this to the judgement of the author.
I just removed challengeri then, since it's not too neccessary either. As for your second comment, it's the result of a suggestion by Jens Lallensack in order to remove unecessary details from the lead. I added Doyle's name back, though without pointing out The Lost World, which should be a good compromise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • —known from a snout tip that was described in 1996— - perhaps note that it was later in 1996, so avoid confusion on why it's the junior synonym?
Good idea, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this has been proven otherwise - I would prefer the more neutral "this has been question" of "cast into doubt" or something along those lines.
Went with the second option; more concise. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spinosaurid skeletal material, some of which could belong to Angaturama, was retrieved from the Romualdo Formation, allowing for a replica skeleton to be made and mounted for display at the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro in 2009. - is there a particular reason Angaturama is singled out here instead of saying "Irritator or Angaturama" or merely "the taxon"? Also, I'd say "Other spinosaurid skeletal material..." at the beginning of the sentence.
Changed to "Irritator or Angaturama" and Added "Other spinosaurid skeletal material". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 6 and 8 meters (20 and 26 ft) in length - it should be made clear this is a range of estimates as opposed to a range of sizes known from different individuals.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator challengeri's holotype remains the most completely preserved skull found for a spinosaurid. - I think "most completely preserved spinosaurid skull yet found" would sound more natural, personally. Up to author's judgement.
Definitely sounds better IMO, took your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossil evidence is known of an individual that ate a pterosaur, possibly from hunting or scavenging it. - shouldn't this be "either from" and not "possibly"? Unless a serious third possibility is on or has been put on the table.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time it was assumed to be the skull of a giant basal pterosaur, or flying reptile, since the Chapada do Araripe region is famous for its copious pterosaur finds - I can't read the non-Englsih source myself, but does it explicitly say that it's a basal pterosaur they thought it was? This seems an odd assumption given the pterosaurs from Brazil at that time are all pterodactyloids...
I can read Portuguese and the source says they thought it was a "primitive pterosaur", though I'm not sure if this is used in Portuguese as a synonym to basal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two years earlier, Frey and Martill named a new pterosaur - I would say "Frey and Martill had name" since this happened before and not after.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator challengeri is the first dinosaur described from the Romualdo Formation - was the first.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • previously designated the Romualdo Member of the Santana Formation - based on the Santana Group there doesn't seem to be a Santana Formation anymore at all, perhaps this should be noted?
This is pointed out in the first paragraph of Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography, but I added "then" before "Santana Formation" here, to serve as a nod to this fact. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and its holotype specimen represents the most completely preserved skull known for a spinosaurid. - see above comment about this wording in the lead.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the first two sentences of the paragraph of the above three comments at the end of the paragraph, with the information about its assignment to the Romualdo Formation coming first. This is a more natural flow of information, talking about how we came to know it came from the formation and then noting why this is important.
Rejigged according to your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Known skull elements as interpreted by paleontologist Jaime A. Headden; the snout tip is from the Angaturama specimen. - I would say "Known skull elements of Irritator..." since the image is in the section about Angaturama.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, although the two specimens evidently do not belong to the same individual - again, I don't like this wording. I'd say something more like "Though they therefore concluded the two specimens do not belong to the same individual...".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides skull elements - are there further skull elements than the two specimens, or is this just in reference to them? I'd prefer this be made clear here if possible.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • given that the last two - "given that both"; "last two" implies more taxa were listed beforehand.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bone histology indicates that this individual was a subadult, so the mature animal may have been much larger - is the word "much" itself used in the paper? If not, this should only say "larger" without exaggeration.
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MN 4819-V comprises a largely intact pelvis, some dorsal (back) and caudal (tail) vertebrae, five sacral (hip) vertebrae, a partial right tibia and fibula (shin and calf bones), most of the right femur (thigh bone), and part of an ulna (forearm bone).[23][25] It also has the most complete hand known from a spinosaurid, including metacarpals, phalanges, one carpals, and one claw. - this all seems like information that should also be in the postcrania section of "History of research".
I don't see the need in repeating this information, and think that it's best to stick with "the most complete spinosaur specimen retrieved from the Romualdo Formation is MN 4819-V, a partial skeleton lacking the skull." for the discovery section, as is done for Irritator's skull (the specific bones are not mentioned in discovery either). IMO this more precise anatomical information is more relevant for the description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mentions of Spinosaurus, spinosaurid, Baryonyx, and Suchomimus should all be linked in the classification section.
I thought that according to MOS:DUPLINK, terms are only to be linked once in the main text? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note somewhere that as a spinosaurid it belongs to the superfamily Megalosauroidea. Noting at some point that it is a theropod may also be worth doing.
Done, it's especially useful since one of the cladograms actually shows Megalosauroidea. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although much of the holotype's morphology turned out to be greatly different - I find this a bit unclear, I'd say "turned out to be greatly different than thought by them" or something similar.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nostrils of Irritator were shifted far to the rear of the skull - in the classification section it's said this was more recently disputed, which seems important to note somewhere in this paragraph. It's sort of alluded to when it says it had less retracted nostrils than Spinosaurus, but this doesn't seem clear enough to me.
Used "far back from the tip of the snout" instead, which sounds less extreme. Did this for the lead as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although to a lesser degree - to a lesser degree than what?
Than most known spinosaurs, added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually marginal and coastal habitats - could "marginal" be linked anywhere? I myself am unfamiliar with the term and surely general readers will also be.
There seem to be no links for the term, and the relevant definition for it is missing from the Wikitionary as well[5]. Could it just be redlinked to marginal habitat? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • more-terrestrial - I see no reason for a dash here.
Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • osteosclerosis therefore might have been the norm in the Spinosaurinae - is "the norm" proper terminology? I always thought it was slang.
Huh, I've never heard anything about it being slang, and at least two other dino FAs use it.[6][7]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would again link terms such as Spinosaurus and Baryonyx in the first mention in the palaeobiology section.
Again, I thought MOS:DUPLINK didn't allow this? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and overlies the Crato Formation - link "Crato Formation".
Already linked in history of discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generalized locations of spinosaurid fossil discoveries on an Albian-Cenomanian map, 113 to 93.9 million years ago - I would make it clear this only reflects discoveries from that time span.
Done, I'll do this for Oxalaia as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps, the size diagram and the nostril diagram
Scaled up all four images, I also went ahead and removed the "D" in the second map, which is left over from when it was a multiple-map image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Spinosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek_-_Version_2.svg: National Museum of Brazil link is dead. Same with File:Irritator_Life_Reconstruction.jpg
Replaced both links with an Internet Archive snapshot. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure File:Irritator_at_sunset_by_PaleoGeek.png is needed
Are you suggesting I remove the image? Not sure how that would be beneficial for the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What benefit do you feel it's currently providing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It provides a closeup restoration of the animal's head (as there is already one for the full body), and gives readers a tangible example of how its head might have looked like in life. Especially since the skull remains are only thing that can be confidently attributed to Irritator at this time, it is less speculative. Multiple restorations in a dinosaur article aren't exactly unusual, either. From what I've seen, if there is room for such an image, and it is relevant to the article, then it is typically added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ibrahim et al. (2014), added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is a general issue:[8] Perhaps Lusotitan will return too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by IJReid

[edit]

Yeah why not I'll start looking over it shortly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only thing for Discovery: What year was the Irritator fossil found? All other details seem included, but the first paragraph noticably lacks any date or year. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk also asked this during the peer review.[9] I couldn't find any sources that mention a date, and since the fossil was dug up illegally by local collectors, it makes sense why that would be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotta object to the significant use of bracketed explanation terms in the end of Description. I've never heard the tibia or fibula called "shank bones" before. It might be a regional thing but they are the "shin bones". Stuff like "manus (hand)" cn just link to manus|hand so the manus word is hidden, to reduce the overall bracketed words that are rather distracting. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to (shin and calf bones) since only the tibia is a shin bone, I was mostly going off of Brachiosaurus here[10], where "shank bones" was used, though now that I think of it I haven't heard that term either. I hid/removed a few bracketed terms besides manus (anatomy), such as ungual => claw, pubes (pubic bones) => pubic bones, and pelvic (hip) bones => pelvic bones. Are there any other ones I should do? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that looks to be everything from me support IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 07:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]
  • I think we still need a source review for formatting and reliability.
Indeed. Lusotitan of course still has to do his review as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I don't think PaleoGeekSquared was subjected to a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing at their first FAC, which is normal practice, so I'd like to see one here. Both these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, well, it was my first FAC, so I wasn't aware of many of the procedures. Anyways, thanks for bringing it up! I've put up the request. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's generally up to the coords to ask for spotchecks to be performed and I overlooked it that time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea when the source review might get done? It's been a little while now... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: It may be worth asking someone to take a look. Perhaps FunkMonk or Casliber would be able to oblige? And unless I'm being stupid, I think we still need the formal source review. Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Alright. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #10 - used once, material faithful to source...but what makes it a reliable source?
I never even noticed this source; it appears to have been here from before the article's expansion. Either way, it's not needed, since all the information in it is a repeat of Martill et al. 1997. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #33 and #34 - both used once, material faithful to source (do we need both?)
Seems like no, kept the Guardian one. Any more suggestions, Casliber? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the sourcing. Otherwise lots of good peer-reviewed papers etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I am promoting this now, but two little points to consider. First, in "The holotype skull was thoroughly prepared before being redescribed in 2002", "prepared" is a little vague (we use "cleaned" in the main body. Is that better?). And in the references, we need to be consistent over whether we give the location of a publisher (e.g. compare ref 37 and 46). But neither of these is worth delaying promotion for. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The thing is, though, without the context given in the main body, "cleaned" makes it sound as if they washed the skull or something of the like. Plus, I think most general readers have at least heard of specimen preparation before. The location parameter has been removed from all citations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:48, 19 January 2019 (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/Irritator/archive1&oldid=879229190"