Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lambeosaurus

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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Lambeosaurus

Submitted for your approval, Lambeosaurus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is well-cited throughout, presents useful images (a personal favorite being the diagram used to illustrate the postulated growth stages and sexes, based on scaled skull restorations), and covers its topics in detail using the standard dinosaur article format. External links are germane, the length is comparable to present dinosaur FAs, and it has been stable. Additionally, it has had a prose review by a non WP:DINO editor. J. Spencer 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as minor contributor and WP dino collaboration co-coordinator. I feel this has been thoroughly massaged and is the equal of other dino FAs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm a member of WP:DINO and did contribute small bits to this article. This was a tiny stub until expanded by J in April. It's come a long way since April, and it seems comparable in size to featured articles Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Styracosaurus and Psittacosaurus. J clearly knows his ornithopods. The text has been massaged for grammar and spelling several times, and the lead seems to cover most of the points in the text. I've broken down a few really long sentences (70+ words). The prose seems clear enough, though this should be judged by someone less familiar with the material. I'm hoping to get more feedback on this article than that of the last Featured dinosaur candidate, and look forward to making further improvements whenever possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've read this article a few times now and can't find anything to nitpick. It is certainly comprehensive, well referenced and well illustrated. Another great production by J. Spencer in the lines of the FAs Thescelosaurus, Iguanodon, Parasaurolophus, and other GAs. Well done! ArthurWeasley 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as minor contributor and and illustrator of the article. I feel this has been thoroughly massaged and is the equal of other dino FAs. (Sorry Cas for ripping off your comment!) de Bivort 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You...you...plagiarist!! (hahaha) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

Acceptable. Leranedo 09:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article and I'm happy to vote support, but I do have a few small issues. --Aranae 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the phrase meant by "idealized tetrapod hand", and find it misleading. Unless that type of terminology is used in formal sources, I think it should be "primitive tetrapod hand".
I don't see how Corythosaurini isn't a junior synonym of Lambeosaurini Parks, 1923. Since Lambeosaurus is the type of Lambeosaurinae, the intermediate rank should also have Lambeosaurus as the type, right? Do any publications apply both Corythosaurini also use Lambeosaurinae or is the tribe coming from one source and the subfamily from another?
In the classification section, "Standard-bearer" should be changed to "type genus".
There's a discrepency between use of parentheses in the "Species" section and in the taxobox. My guess is that the taxobox is correct and parentheses need to be removed from several species names in the text.
In my experience, the "stapes" is usually called columella in "reptiles" (cranial crest section.

I'm pretty sure the parentheses around the author and date in the article body are not actually intended to be "taxonomic" parentheses marking a later change in status, but actual "punctuation" parentheses giving the information as an aside. Circeus 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for your comments, Aranae. Clearly, you read through the article, and your comments are greatly appreciated. Regarding "idealized tetrapod hand", may I suggest something along the lines of "typical tetrapod hand", or "generalized tetrapod hand"...? I know many paleontologists prefer terms like "basal" over "primitive" and "derived" over "advanced" because the latter terms have an inherent bias attached to them. And when I think of a primitive tetrapod hand, I think of the flipper-feet of Tiktaalik. At the same time, "basal"/"derived" are too jargonistic in an encyclopedia meant for mainstream readers. As far as "Lambeosaurini" goes, I'm not sure that tribe has been formally defined, while the name Corythosaurini is in actual use in modern scientific literature (Evans and Reisz, 2007). Firsfron of Ronchester 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a couple of points:

1. Yeah, I was struggling to come up with a phrase that meant "the idealized/traditional five-fingered tetrapod hand". An earlier version mentioned that the animal only had four fingers per hand and then said that the fifth was mobile, which is confusing to someone who doesn't know about the biological numbering of fingers, and that the first finger is missing and the animal had two-three-four-five. Curse those early tetrapods and their many fingers; this was much easier years ago!

2. Corythosaurini should be the junior synonym (just as Lambeosaurus should technically be Procheneosaurus), but it's the one that's in use, and Lambeosaurini has not been used in the literature (that I've ever seen). I'd have to check, but I think that the first attempt to make tribes (M.K. Brett-Surman's dissertation) used Corythosaurini or a similar formulation, and the name seeped in.

4. The parentheses were a stylistic choice, so it's not a big deal if they are changed.

5. That's odd; I've only ever seen "stapes" in articles dealing with dinosaurs. J. Spencer 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bash at 1 (not quite what you had, but the additional qualifier might help), 3, and 4, although I think the species section might be harder to read without the parentheses. Thanks for the comments! J. Spencer 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that "primitive" is less than perfect and also that "typical" or "generalized" might be better.

2. It's not our place to fix the problems in the literature and it sounds like Corythosaurini should stay until it gets fixed in the literature.

5. If they're using stapes, that's great. I have limited reptile experience, and no dinosaurs, and in that I've seen columella. Stapes is simpler for the reader anyway. --Aranae 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely seen columella with crocodiles, though; I'm not sure why there should be a disconnect. J. Spencer 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.