Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limusaurus/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [1].

Limusaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This little dinosaur may seem inconspicuous, but there are many interesting aspects to it. All known specimens were found stuck in what appears to have been mud pits formed by the footprints of giant dinosaurs (which gave it its name). while it had teeth when juvenile, these were entirely lost as it grew up, a feature only known from a few other animals. Adults appear to have been herbivorous, though it belonged in a group of otherwise carnivorous dinosaurs. In addition, its unusual hands were also thought to have implications for bird evolution, but this idea has fallen out of favour. The article was originally brought to GA by Lythronax, and Jens and I have since built further on this solid skeleton for FAC, so the entire literature about the animal should be covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • Caption: "Block containing holotype (green), gastroliths (red), assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)". Should that be 'Block containing the holotype (green), gastroliths (red), an assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)'?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It underwent a drastic morphological transformation as it aged; while juveniles were toothed". I think that semi colon should be a colon.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is also confirmed". Suggest deleting "also".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in most dinosaurs, the skull featured five principal fenestrae (openings), including". I am not sure that "including" is the right word when you go on to list all five. Perhaps replace "including" with a colon?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is also unique for this genus". Do you mean 'which is also unique to this genus'?fs
Yes, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had three fingers (the middle three, as compared to the five fingers of more basal relatives)". Optional: move the closing parenthesis to after "three".
Done, much more elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third finger only had three phalanges". Optional: A) 'The third finger also only had three phalanges' B) insert a comma after "phalanges".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Wiktionary link to "stout".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unique for the genus"> Again, I think that 'to' would express your meaning more clearly.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another unique feature, the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced". This doesn't really work. Maybe 'The hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced, another unique feature,"? Or 'Another unique feature was the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw), which was reduced.'? Or whatever.
Your first suggestion is correct, took it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known specimen of Elaphrosaurus itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Middle/Late Jurassic period". Optional: → 'during the Middle and Late Jurassic'.
Added "to". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along the lineage that led to birds, however, the number of digits in the hand decreased"> Does the "however" add anything?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which includes birds, two digits had disappeared from the hand, leaving three digits." Optional: delete the second "digits".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to not receiving the necessary signals". I think that this either needs further explanation (possibly a footnote?) or deleting.
Hope it is understandable now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The major alternative hypothesis supported by Xing and colleagues," A) "major" → 'main'? B) comma after hypothesis?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The divergent developmental pathways of ceratosaurians and tetanurans is associated with". "is" → 'are'. (Or "pathways" → 'pathway'.)
Changed to "are". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tetanurans utilized their hands for grasping, while the hands of ceratosaurians almost certainly played no role in predation." This makes the assumptions that "grasping" only occurs when grasping prey, and that a reader would understand this. Perhaps a bit of tweaking?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will have a look soon, pinging my co-nominators Jens Lallensack and Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wang and colleagues analyzed". Suggestion: let the reader know when this was.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "growth had ceased in these particular individuals" I am not sure that "particular" adds anything.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most extreme case of tooth morphology changing with age among dinosaurs". Do we need a 'known' or 'recorded' somewhere in there?
Added "recorded among dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the others are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus)" Could we make this a separate sentence?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "genetic developmental signal pathways". Is there any way of making this a little more accessible?
  • "the small head with toothless jaws and long neck were interpreted as". When?
Added date. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gastroliths (stomach stones)". I know that you have Wikilinked, but perhaps expand the bracketed explanation? '(stones ingested to be used to grind fibrous vegetable matter in an animal's stomach)' or similar.
Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in old adults". Possibly 'in older adults'?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the increased amount of gastroliths". "amount" → 'number'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trapped on any other basis than size". Optional: maybe 'trapped on any basis other than size'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it is yet unknown whether". Is there a missing 'as'?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sedimentary rocks that was deposited". "was" → 'were'.
Changed, though I think "was" may have referred to "a succession". FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a map to show where Xinjiang is within China? Ideally, also Shishugou Formation. Personally I like the two in Shishugou Formation.
I made a new map[2] that specifically shows the Wucaiwan locality (based on another published map showing an adjacent fossil locality). FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Wucaiwan locality include the theropods Haplocheirus, Zuolong, and Guanlong, the latter of which is, like Limusaurus, frequently found in mud deposits; the sauropod Mamenchisaurus; the ornithischians Gongbusaurus and Yinlong; the cynodont Yuanotherium; the mammal Acuodulodon; the crocodyliforms Sunosuchus, Junggarsuchus, Nominosuchus and an unnamed species associated with the holotype specimen of Limusaurus; and the turtles Xinjiangchelys and Annemys." The section after the semi colon is not grammatical.
disentangled. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods". Would it be possible avoid "abundance" twice in seven words> Possibly replace the first with 'incidence' or whatever?
Took incidence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods is underestimated elsewhere as these animals are generally less likely to fossilize." Is this universally accepted? It seems a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice.
Added "According to Eberth and colleagues". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the article by Eberth and colleagues" → 'in the XXXX article by Eberth and colleagues'?
Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a bit more context, authors and dates to other studies with this[3] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "range in depth from 1–2 m (3 ft 3 in–6 ft 7 in)" For clarity, consider changing the em dashes for the word 'to'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laminae": is there a link? If not, perhaps an in line explanation?
Added link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guanlong, would merely have been 66 cm (26 in) tall" → 'Guanlong, would have been merely 66 cm (26 in) tall'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could have led to soil liquefaction, creating a trap for smaller animals". Why might soil liquefaction create a trap? (Rhetorical question.)
Fixed, hopefully. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much larger individuals likely got stuck in a highly viscous sediment and got preserved in their original death positions". Second "got" to 'were' or 'became'.
Changed to became. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four theropod dinosaur skeletons including two Limusaurus, two Guanlong and one individual of a not yet described species". I make that that the four skeletons included five individuals.
Oh yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low sediment cohesivity". What that?

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone through some issues, but I'll need my co-nominators to help with other parts in sections I didn't write. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks for the detailed review. I think everything should be fixed now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is nearly all looking good.

  • "Xu and collagues replied in 2011 that they still a step-wise shift more plausible" There is a word missing; or possibly several. And a spelling error.
Fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wang and colleagues analyzed growth rings (visible in bone cross-sections and analogous to the growth rings of trees) of the tibiae from the various developmental stages of Limusaurus in 2917". :-) Probably not.
We're dealing in millions of years here, how much difference do a few centuries to or from make... Fixed, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus to get stuck". Grammar. Maybe 'resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus getting stuck'. Or (better, IMO) 'which resulted in smaller animals such as Limusaurus becoming stuck'.
Took the latter suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggest low sediment cohesivity". I think that "low sediment cohesivity" is going to sail over the heads of most readers.
I think Jens knows it best, so I'll leave this tasty morsel for him (oh, and you forgot to sign the nomination, Jens!). FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we loose too much if we just call it "soft mud". Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, much of those were my late night, half asleep additions from yesterday, should now be fixed, except the last one... FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it :-) . All good. Just the cohesivity issue outstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, last issue fixed now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from LittleLazyLass (Lusotitan)

[edit]

Given the triple nomination, there's less WP:DINO folks available to review, so I might as well chip in.

Thanks, yeah, that's always a danger, we're a bit low on manpower in the FAC department... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull section seems rather lopsided in terms of paragraph size, and as far as I can tell the information is not conveyed in any particular order (notice, for example, information on the jaws spread all across the section instead of collected together). It seems to me that about half of the section is spent talking about fenestrae, so why not put all that in one paragraph and then the rest of the info in the second? It would balance things out and make it feel more organized. Merely a suggestion, but I thought it would be worth bringing up.
It follows the order "Cranium" (first paragraph) and "Lower Jaw" (second paragraph). The lower jaw does not belong to the cranium, that's why I thought it should go into a separate paragraph. Teeth are discussed at the very end since this is the usual order followed in the literature. We could, however, make three paragraphs out of it ("Fenestrae", "other cranial autapomorphies", "lower jaw"), would that improve things? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's there is fine now that it's been explained. I just didn't appreciate the logic of the order. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest renaming "Classification" to "Classificiation and evolution", because I don't think the current title really encompasses "Digit homolgy" very well.
good point, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was often considered an ornithomimosaur from 1928 and well into the 1990s - I'm not sure what "and" is doing there, "from 1928 well into the" seems to convey the intended meaning in a clearer fashion.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together with an as-of-yet unnamed taxon represented by specimen CCG 20011 (formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses), the three taxa formed the clade Elaphrosaurinae - this should say "the two taxa", since "the three taxa" is referring to the aforementioned taxa. The current wording implies three taxa plus CCG 20011.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the part "(formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses)" is really needed here, thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This info could be useful, but I also think that there is excessive detail that makes the sentence convoluted and difficult to read; I would support simplification and remove this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would likewise say to cut it; while it's technically background info, it's just an incorrect classification, so it communicates no relevant info about what this specimen actually is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed for now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Rauhut and Carrano used to extrapolate the complete length of the former taxon at 6.0–6.3 m (19.7–20.7 ft). - it seems reasonable to note that Limusaurus clarified the position of Elaphrosaurus, but I think talking about the size of said relative is digressing a bit too much - how exactly is this passage relevant? I would cut it.
yes, done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because Limusaurus was the "key" to a more accurate size estimate after so many years of uncertainty, and because it is interesting to note how much larger it was. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair enough then. If you go to User:Lusotitan/sandbox you'll find a slightly restructured version of the section with the statement re-inserted. I changed the wording a bit to put more focus on how it was the size estimate was made possible by the discovery of Limusaurus. The purpose of the restructuring was to place the sentence in the first paragraph. While it may seem intuitive to place it with the other info from the same paper, I think it fits better to talk about its impact on our knowledge of Elaphrosaurus right after we introduce the idea that they're related, as opposed to in the middle of the paragraph about them moving to Noasauridae. It also happens to balance out the paragraphs quite nicely. No obligation to follow this, you could just put it back in like it was, but I thought it was worth making the suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the way the section is written is chronological, study by study, though, so it seems kind of misplaced to have this info upfront when it wasn't even considered or had an impact until 2016. Putting it at the beginning would make it look like it was conclusions already made in the 2009 description of Limusaurus. Also, I'm a bit uncertain about saying "the closely related Elaphrosaurus" already at the beginning of the section, because though the 2009 paper made comparisons between the two, it did not yet consider them "close relatives", as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They found the two to nest together in a cladogram in the supp. info; and your version already says they're related, it's just that you do it in parentheses. If you think that keeping it strictly chronological is better (I disagree) than that's fine, as I said it was just a suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back with your new wording. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram below shows the position of Limusaurus within Noasauridae according to Wang and colleagues, 2017: - pretty big concerns with this; first of all, neither tree appearing in the paper shows such a cladogram. Both instead show Deltadromeus, Genusaurus, and Velocisaurus as noasaurines. One of them also shows Spinostropheus as an elaphrosaurine, which seems like a very relevant detail to include in this section.
I'm not sure when this cladogram was added, but it would seem there are also newer ones we could use, anyone have suggestions for what would be the best, most inclusive one to add? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram is in the supplementary information of the paper, the last one (including both juvenile and adult Limusaurus as seperate taxonomic units). But this also makes that cladogram unusual, and its difficult to declare why we use this and not one of the other versions presented. Let's just use the cladogram published in the recent Huinculsaurus paper instead, I can include it later today. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In restructuring the section you misplaced the reference for the Wang et al. paper; reference four should be included at the end of this sentence: significantly through growth. A 2019 study by. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added back. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (continuing from the above point) Why is the cladogram restricted down to just Noasauridae? Retaining the original extent that also shows "Ceratosauridae" and abelisaurs would be more informative, and it isn't like it would be much larger anyways. As is it's just a tiny polytomy that is barely useful at all. Related suggestion, the "Etrigansauria" paper could be sourced used instead, being a similar but more recent tree; you could perhaps go for a paired cladogram format to show both theories as to whether Noasauridae or Ceratosauridae is closer to Abelisauridae.
The "Etrigansauria" do not seem to get much support however, the paper seems to reflect a minority opinion, and therefore maybe is not the best choice. Let's just go for the most recent cladogram. They are usually restricted to Noasauridae though, so not sure if we can "expand" them without violating WP:Synth? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say that the wider interrelatiobships of Ceratosauria aren't that important here, maybe if it had been in Noasaurus, which is more important for the history of the clade. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram you've gone with seems agreeable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar vein to the lack of mention of potential relative Spinostropheus, the recently described Huinculsaurus was found as an elaphrosaurine so is also worthy of mention in this section.
Huinculsaurus is mentioned now; what makes Spinostropheus more relevant than the other unmentioned noasaurids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the trees from Wang et al. (2017) found it within Elaphrosaurinae, so it seems to me relevant to include a (very brief) mention that it's a possible member of the group. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint, Spinostropheus is now mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biologist Josef Stiegler and colleagues stated in a 2014 conference abstract that Limusaurus is the earliest known toothless theropod - the original description paper of Limusaurus says this as well, so it seems preferable to cite it to that, where one can assume Stiegler got that fact from in the first place.
I can't find this in the 2009 paper? It says it's toothless, yes, but not the earliest known, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LittleLazyLass, all other points should now be addressed, but neither one of us could find this specifically mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the paper's statement Limusaurushas a fully developed rhamphotheca. Amongnon-avian theropods, this condition has been previously reportedonly in some Cretaceous coelurosaurs8, so this new find extendsthe distribution of rhamphothecae within theropods both temporallyand phylogenetically., but in hindsight saying it has a fully developed beak is a bit different from saying it's toothless. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, but of course, a beak does not preclude teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most basal theropods had five digits on the hand. - this phrasing seems awkward, wouldn't "on each hand" be a less clunky way of saying this?
OK, but we must make clear that we are talking about manual digits, not pedal digits. "five digits in the hand" or "five digits in the forelimb" maybe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The former sounds good to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the emergence of the group Tetanurae - I would probably link the word "Tetanurae"; it was done earlier in the article but that way back in the lead and this is a term meaning nothing to a layman reader.
did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and has been used by paleornithologist Alan Feduccia to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs which had lost the first and fifth digits. - are BANDits really so significant that they specifically are worth giving specific mention to amongst "200 years of debate"? It has no bearing on anything else in the section. I'd cut this passage.
Not sure, I think a bit of background is usually a good idea, and this is perhaps the most significant discussion related to the digit homology thing. But will see what my co-authors think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was the most vocal proponent of this idea, and is respected in ornithological circles, we can't really leave out mention of him just because we disagree with his ideas, per WP:NPOV. He was not exactly David Peters. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Feduccia is certainly relevant to the LDR/BDR hypotheses, and thus Limusaurus. Nevertheless, I think we should clarify the sentence to make it clear that the BANDit hypothesis is a fringe theory at best. Perhaps it can be rewritten as "to support the fringe hypothesis that birds..." Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it fringe, but maybe we can add "now widely refuted" or something similar to make clear that this hypothesis is a minority opinion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be good. Fringe is just a nice way of saying pseudoscience anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my main issue was that it's brought up but nothing else in the section ever comes back to it. In other words, it's relevant to the topic of the section but not to anything in the section, if that makes sense. It would be nice if there could be some resolution later about how Limusaurus provided evidence against this, but sources probably don't give anything to work with there. I won't pursue the issue further since how significant it is is rather subjective; it's inclusion or not has no bearing on me supporting or opposing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But we'd need reliable sources stating that his ideas in this particular context (digit homology) are fringe or pseudoscience, which I don't think exist. It was legitimate, peer-reviewed science, but the conclusions reached from it have fallen out of favour, which the article already states in the intro and with these sentences in the article body: "and therefore have no bearing on the issue of avian digit homology", "and is unconnected to the pattern of digital reduction and frameshift that occurred in tetanurans". But what I think we need instead to counter the statement "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs" would be to see if one of the relevant articles directly refutes this part, stating that birds more likely evolved from theropods. I'm not familiar with that part of the literature used here, but we can have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added a counterclaim sourced to this multi-authored paper[4], so that it now reads: "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods (wich is the mainstream view on bird origins) but from some other group of archosaurs" What do you guys think? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it its own sentence, but it looks a bit tacked on: "The mainstream view of bird origins among paleontologists is that birds are theropod dinosaurs." But I think the source is good for what we want to say, it can be arranged any way we like. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Saltriovenator description paper had quite a bit to say that's relevant to the digit homology section, so I think it's worth incorporating that into the section here. At the very least, Figure 15 of the paper seems like it would fit wonderfully into the section.
This is of course an important paper to include. Added now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the image would do well to be included, but it's not a deal breaker of course.
Whoops, I completely missed the good suggestion about the image, now added, of course! I moved the more general arm diagram up to description instead. Also spelled out Cristiano Dal Sasso and linked him. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the arm diagram to the left side; it goes against the direction of the image but having four images in a row be on the same side always look a bit awkward if you ask me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable. Moved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I layed it on pretty heavy for that Classification section, so I'll stop here for the moment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the classification section was also the hardest to get into shape. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juveniles began with one tooth in the premaxilla, eight in the maxilla, and eleven in the lower jaw (42 teeth in total) - I think some explanation of the math might be needed, this is quite confusing. I'm assuming the logic is that this is per side, so maybe swap out "in the premaxilla" for "in each premaxila" and so forth. But that still only makes 40 teeth, is one of the numbers here wrong?
It should be "at least 12" in the dentary, not sure what happened here. Corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the next stage, the first, sixth, and eighth teeth in the maxilla, as well as the sixth in the lower jaw had all been lost (34 teeth in total), although the sockets were still present, and there was a small replacement tooth in the socket of the sixth lower toot - I would move the total number of teeth to the end of the sentence, since I was quite confused at how eight teeth were lost but the total only went down six until I read the bit about the replacement teeth.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the growth and diet sections could be combined? The latter is a singular paragraph and it builds off the section before it, even referring directly to the mullet and catfish comparison. This is another "just a suggestion" comment.
There is a detailed description of Limusaurus on the way I just learned, so I'm sure these sections will both grow a lot when that's out, so I think it's easier to keep them as they are, as the structure will be ready. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - ah. That's unfortunate. Where did you hear this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can bring it over to WP:PALAEOPR once new research comes around. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current citation 19, a conference abstract which is a precursor to a coming article (it says so). And yeah, PR was also a good place to get a new look on the expanded Ankylosaurus FAC (still there if anyone has comments). FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I think I may have conflated that abstract with this statement in the Elaphrosaurus paper: "Further possible apomorphies of this clade that are currently unknown in Limusaurus, pending a more complete description of this taxon". But the level of information in that abstract certainly implies something bigger is underway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likewise wonder if the social behaviour section would feel too out of place in the taphonomy section alongside the preservational information it builds off of.
I think we also need to consider where the reader would look for such info, and it probably wouldn't be under taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleontologist Rafael Delcourt agreed in 2018 that assemblages of associated Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus specimens suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups. - this could be easily misunderstood as saying that Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus were found associated with each other, I think some re-wording is necessary.
Yeah, tried with "since both Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus have been found in assemblages of multiple specimens each, this suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups", better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I can find to comment on, good work. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things seem in order now. I will pledge support for promotion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a lot of improvements came out of it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You imply that there is only one species in the genus but this should be spelled out.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus was the first known member of the group Ceratosauria from Asia. Along with its closest relative, Elaphrosaurus, it was a member of the family Noasauridae, a group of small and lightly built abelisaurs." This is difficult to relate to the classifications in the infobox. If I understand correctly, Limusaurus and Elaphrosaurus are genera of the group Ceratosauria, an unofficial classification which is part of the Elaphrosaurinae sub-family. These are all part of the family Noasauridae, which is part of the abelisaurs super-family, which is mentioned in the text but not in the infobox. Is it possible to make this clearer?
The hierarchy is Ceratosauria > Abelisauria > Noasauridae. I have reworded this sentence but I'm not sure it is an improvement. In particular, I cut out Abelisauria entirely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has implications for the evolution of birds, though this has been contested." You first state the implications as fact, then as contested, then in the intro to the FAC as out of favour.
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably corresponded to a dietary shift from omnivory to herbivory" This does not seem logical as most herbivores have teeth.
Not so in dinosaurs, where many herbivorous lineages modified their dentition into beaks. Indeed, even fewer carnivores lack teeth. I don't think your assumption is a common one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tip of its jaws was covered by a beak, a feature that was previously unknown in theropods more basal (or "primitive") than coelurosaurs". It may be me but I am not clear what this means. Are you saying that there are theropods which are less basal than coelurosaurs which also have beaks?
The group of theropods "less basal than coelurosaurs" is just the coelurosaurs, so yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still seems to me confusing as you only explain later under 'Classification and evolution' that Limusaurus was more basal than the coelurosaurs. Indeed, its basal status seems to be disputed, although the discussion is difficult for a layman to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the pelvis, the ilium was small and tilted towards the midline of the body, as is the case in Elaphrosaurus" "Of the pelvis" sounds odd and seems unnecessary. Why not "The ilium was small"? Also there is a change in tense with "was small" and "is the case".
The opening lays out that the paragraph pertains to the pelvic girdle and legs, so it is relevant. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that this review was going so I'll take some of these comments. Responses soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth." "one of the only known" is confused. Do you mean "one of the few known"?
Changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth. The other known examples are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus. Its complicated pattern of losing teeth from both the front and the back is most similar to that of the avialan Jeholornis." You say that the only parallels are in fish and mammals, and then that the closest parallel is in avialans. This seems contradictory. Perhaps worth saying that this is convergent evolution?
There are two issues here: total tooth loss and the pattern of tooth loss. Reworded to note the difference. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image label: "Restoration of two Guanlong and a Yinlong, contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Shishugou Formation". "Restoration" is the wrong word "Artist's impression" would be better.
Restoration/reconstruction is the common term for illustrations of prehistoric animals (paleoart), used both in technical and popular works. In any case, "impression" would imply the artist had observed the animals, and I have never seen that term used in relevant sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A climate consistently dry with wet summers seems a contradiction.
Reworded to "relatively". It can be drier than other environments overall but still wetter during the summer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Limusaurus was in a layer 14-16 inches thick, and then that one of the mud pits containing specimens was 21 ft higher in the stratigraphic column than the others.
I think there is a mistake. According to the source the former should be 350–400 metres thick. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, certainly helps to get a "layman" review for clarity! FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've requested an image and source review. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem like they are in a good section. Is the licence of File:Wucaiwan locality.jpg shown somewhere? File:Limusaurus size.png doesn't give the source images. Is File:Limusaurus-skull-diagram.png really an own work and freely licenced? No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
It is also stated on the journal's website[5], I added this link to the file page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... about this image - Wucaiwan is misspelt "Wucaivan". FunkMonk, can you correct this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, fixed, remind me to not delete psd files for images with text haha... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is a modification of Headden's skeletal[6], added to file description. The human is a PD image by NASA. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats correct (also my contributions rn are throttled by university). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images seem now OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a peek at the sourcing. As it's quite late here I won't be doing a source spot-check unless asked. I am not so sure if BCC, CNN and The Guardian are good sources to use on a paleontology article, there should be more scientific sources available for these claims (#43 is a better use as it explicitly sources a statement on how media depict this thing, rather than the academic facts). All sources appear to be of the type that are expected at this type of article, but I notice that the available information (DOI, PMC, archivelinks etc.) often varies from citation to citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the news sources are used for circumstantial info that would be unnecessary to mention in scientific papers, such as how the animal has been depicted in life, and that some specimens were preliminarily considered different species from each other, and what the press called the "death pits" the animals were found in. Removing this info would not make the article better, so I don't see how we could remove those sources. In any case, those news outlets are not unreliable by any stretch of the imagination. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the citation bot. I don't think there are any other identifiers that can be added. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any updates, or where are we on the review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we are OK unless someone wants a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:24, 13 October 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/Limusaurus/archive1&oldid=984233029"