Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opisthocoelicaudia/archive1
- 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) 00:17, 30 September 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opisthocoelicaudia is an interesting long-necked dinosaur from Mongolia, and a recent effort of the WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs. It contains everything that has been published on the topic. Looking forward to your comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage
[edit]- Resolved referencing comments removed to the Talk page
So, referencing looks a lot better, and I promised a prose review, because dinosaurs.
Prose review, part I
|
---|
Neutral on promotion at this time. I think there's the core of an FA-level article here, and I'm not quite willing to explicitly oppose promotion, but neither can I offer support as it stands at the time of this review. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
A second look it is, then! In general, I think this article is much-improved. I have a handful of remaining quibbles after a second pass:
- "digit bones (phalanges)": Still not fond of parenthetical glossing. Your mileage may vary.
- done
- "Foot skeletons of titanosaurs are rarely found.": I realize that this introduces the following sentences, but it's jarring to read, because, until you get to those sentences, it comes across as a non sequiteur. Perhaps there's a way to reword this without the full stop? I don't have an immediate suggestion.
- done
- Pipe a link for "derived" to derived trait, near the end of Description (you link it in the lead, but lead links don't count against body links for link duplication, and it's probably nice to have here; this section will be dense to a lay reader).
- done
- "Osteoderms have been found with 10 of the over 40 known titanosaur genera, bony plates covering the bodies of these animals.": Dangling modifier. Move the gloss adjacent to the term being glossed. Also, the word osteoderms appears four times in three sentences.
- done
- "10th and 23 June, 1965": Mismatched date formats.
- done
- I'd pipe a link to Valid name (zoology), probably from the first use of "invalid" at the top of Classifaction.
- done
- I'm still not happy with the "probably synonym" phrase as currently used in the Footprints section. I think a more robust rewording word help, making it clear that we're reporting on the researchers' opinion of synonymy here; it's far to easy to read that phrase in the encyclopedia's voice (basically, as reminder text, rather than attribution). Also, while I'm at it, "Currie and colleagues" is used twice in a paragraph, so there's probably a better way to format that in general.
- done, reworded
- I'm dubious about citing the pronunciation to a Youtube video. The IPA for most, if not all, FA-level dinosaur articles is uncited, so that's clearly been taken as acceptable. And the source provided doesn't appear to satisfy WP:RS.
- done, moved it to "external links" (for the readers not familiar with IPA)
Moving to conditional support. I have full confidence that this will be ready for the bronze star by final evaluation time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for all your comments, and your support! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Edwininlondon
[edit]Well-written interesting article. Just a few comments:
- Taphonomy is only mentioned as a header, and linking headers is bad, but I bet we leave the average reader wondering what this means. Anything that can be done in the first sentence?
- Done
- "Footprints were unknown from the Nemegt Formation until 2003," may I suggest -> "Footprints were unknown until 2003,"
- Done
- Image selection is great. Ideally an image of the footprints to conclude. If they exist and have no rights issues.
Edwininlondon (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Edwininlondon! When we started with the article a year ago, we barely had any images at all, so we were quite lucky to get that many! We asked Commons user Adrian Grycuk to visit the museum to take pictures of the mount, and he did a fantastic job. FunkMonk drew a high-quality life reconstruction and found an additional pic on the internet. IJReid got OTRS permission for the professional skeletal drawing. And I did the posture diagram. We unfortunately cannot use images of the footprints because of copyright. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted professor Currie and he kindly sent me some of his own photos and granted permission to put in the public domain. I just uploaded the best one. If you like it, use it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opisthocoelicaudia_footprint.JPG Edwininlondon (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, this is a really great addition to the article! I just added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted professor Currie and he kindly sent me some of his own photos and granted permission to put in the public domain. I just uploaded the best one. If you like it, use it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opisthocoelicaudia_footprint.JPG Edwininlondon (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cas Liber
[edit]- Taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... the possession of a neck of medium length of roughly five meters- any reason why this is not written abbreviated with imperial unit conversion?- done
- I tweaked some stuff, just check if you're ok with it (rationales in edit summaries)
- Great, thank you!
looking on-target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cas Liber, thanks for taking a look, let me know if you have any more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am supporting now on comprehensivenessa and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The footprint image uploaded by Edwininlondon would need an OTRS[2] permission, though... FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think an OTRS is different than a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. That appears to be what he allowed it to be published under via email. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS is just to prove that a given image has been released under any license, it is not a license itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Currie won't be at his email until Sep 21. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image for now. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Curries has confirmed the license via email. I have forwarded it to wikicommons. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image for now. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Currie won't be at his email until Sep 21. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS is just to prove that a given image has been released under any license, it is not a license itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think an OTRS is different than a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. That appears to be what he allowed it to be published under via email. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spot check from Cas Liber
[edit]Watch this space.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN 8 should say what language it is in.
-
- bueno. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise refs look all consistently formatted.
Spot checking...
I can't see where in this reference it supports "While unique in titanosaurs, this feature can be found in several other unrelated sauropods, including Diplodocus and Euhelopus, where it evolved independently."
- This is based on this part of the text: "In some sauropods, the cervical neural spines are bifid (i.e., having separate left and right metapophyses and a trough between them). This morphology appears to have evolved at least five times (in Mamenchisaurus, flagellicaudatans, Camarasaurus Cope, 1877, Euhelopodidae sensu D’Emic (2012) and Opisthocoelicaudia Borsuk-Bialynicka, 1977) with no apparent reversals." No question that Diplodocus is a flagellicaudatan, and Euhelopus is obviously a member of the Euhalopodidae. Is this to much interpretation? If so, we can just use Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus instead, which are explicitly mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah, my bad. I was looking for the wrong keywords. all in order then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- material sourced to FN 16 faithful to source and not paraphrased (both cites checked).
- FN 5 (and all the sentences it supports) checked - material faithful to source and no unnecessary paraphrasing remains (I tweaked one word..)
Thus, spot-checking of three sources (including one that was used 18 times) passes muster. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.