Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nemegtomaia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2017 [1].

Nemegtomaia

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link palate and cranial in the lead.
neural arches, cervical vertebrae - more links

Otherwise looks good - it is clearly comprehensive. The prose is good, though I am re-reading to see if there is any possibility of using less specialized and more plain words (but this is difficult) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, but does need some neophytes to read it for accessibility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, it always seems hard to attract reviews from "laymen"... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT by IJReid

[edit]

Really well written article, just one comment I've noticed so far, but more to come later. IJReid discuss 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sacrum consisted of eight vertebrae" This doesn't really provide any information that would be interesting to a layperson, it doesn't mention size of this, or implication of what more vertebrae means biologically.
Yeah, the only reason this is mentioned/important is because it is one of the features that diagnose it as an ingeniine oviraptorid... Number of sacral vertebrae are mentioned as a diagnostic feature under classification, but I can drop it if it's unnecessary even at that... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's important phylogenetically, its fine to mention that in the classification section, but probably cut it out of the description if it has no purpose there. IJReid discuss 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the description. There is a brief mention in classification already. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared to the rest of the body, the skull of Nemegtomaia was deep, narrow, and short and reached 179 mm (7 in) in length" I don't think this sentence makes sense. Maybe you meant "compared to related species" or something like that, but otherwise the size mention does not fit. IJReid discuss 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, that was repositioned by the copyeditor, I changed it back to: "and short (compared to the rest of the body)". Better? Or maybe the part in parenthesis isn't needed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always a bit hard to judge which, perhaps those Ashorocetus mentioned in the third bullet point of the GA review?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nuked some uncommon ones throughout the article, IJReid, but many of those in the description section are found in most dinosaur FACs, so keeping them would seem to have precedence. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing left, giving it a support. IJReid discuss 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now it would be nice with some non-expert opinions as well, though the most important thing is of course that it doesn't get archived... Perhaps it's too technical to attract reviewers, not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

I was going to do a source review but perhaps I will do a non-expert review instead.

Thanks, much needed and appreciated! FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had three fingers; the first was the largest, with a strong claw." - perhaps "It had three fingers, the first having a strong claw ans being the largest".
I was advised once, for whatever reason, to try not to use "ing" endings.... How about "the first was largest and had/bore a strong claw"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nemegtomaia is classified as a member of the oviraptorid subfamily Ingeniinae, and it is the only known member of this group with a cranial crest." - suggest removing the "it".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-avian dinosaurs." - "avian" needs disambiguating.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in a similar position as modern birds," - "similar to".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the third finger was smallest" - was the smallest.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The front margin of the crest was nearly vertical, and formed almost 90 degrees with the upper margin of the skull."- Awkwardly expressed.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tooth-like projection that was directed downwards (a feature that has been called "pseudo-teeth")." - This starts in the singular and finishes in the plural.
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the front part of the lower jaw" - this phrase occurs twice in adjoining sentences.
Removed one "part", better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I commend this "Description" section as being straightforward and well-written, with sensible glossings and measurements and without excessive jargon. Very good!
Yay! FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ingeniines are also distinguished by their smaller size ..." - this sentence uses "their" several times then stops using the personal pronoun.
Removed "their". FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-avian" - needs disambiguation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That the skeleton was directly positioned on the nest shows that it was not completely covered by sand." - This is a curious statement; I suppose you mean that the eggs were not buried in sand as are the eggs of a crocodile or turtle. (At first I thought the "it" was referring to the skeleton.)
Changed to: " That the skeleton was directly positioned on top of it shows that the nest was" Better? Tried to avoid saying nest twice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oviraptorid eggs appear to have been 17 cm (6 in) on average" - Long?
Yep! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This reproductive system would therefore be the ancestral condition for modern birds, with biparental care (where both parents participate) being a later development." - I am not sure of the logic of this statement, comparing Oviraptorids to modern birds such as ostriches and deducing that male parental care is the ancestral condition seems a non-sequiter.
It is because the system seems to pre-date the origin of modern birds, changed the text a bit, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Longrich et al. pointed out" uses they and them in various places, sometimes referring to the researchers and sometimes to the oviraptorids.
Changed the second time the writers are mentioned to "the researchers", so them and they only refers to the animals. Better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. Can't find any problems or inconsistencies. The only question I have is about the blog, which I agree is OK for uncontroversial information. It's used in two places, and in both cases it shares a spot with another citation, so I can't be sure what it supports. Can you identify exactly what it's used for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, first time is to support the full name "good mother of the Nemegt", as only the component words are translated in the scientific paper. Second time it is to explain the "difficult circumstances" during an excavation, and to state specifically that no trace of an egg or nest were found when the original specimen was collected. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree those are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are just waiting for an image review now (unless I missed it). One can be requested, as usual, at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has already been on the list for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (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/Nemegtomaia/archive1&oldid=766924719"