Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paranthodon/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2017 [1].

Paranthodon

Nominator(s): IJReid ^discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the dinosaur genus Paranthodon, arguably one of the most obscure dinosaurs, with the only bone known being part of a skull originally identified as a pareiasaur. From what I can tell with a simple Google Scholar search, every verifiable publication on the taxon has been included at some point, as well as most sources mentioning the taxon. While being fully comprehensive, this article has remained quite short due to lack of literature. No major changes should come anytime soon, as in a short email conversation with palaeontologist Susannah Maidment (several of her publications are referenced here), it was brought up that an project on the taxon was going to be started by one of her students, but that she didn't expect anything on the taxon to change. This article has been copy edited, and is as comprehensive as it can be with the current literature, and that is why I am nominating it for FA. IJReid ^discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

There are 3 instances of "however" in the Classification section; see if you can trim one or two of them.

I have cut out two, in addition to grammar and flow fixes. IJReid ^discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for the support! I see nothing wrong with your edits, every little fix helps. IJReid ^discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I GA reviewed this, and have drawn one of the images in the article, I'll wait doing a review/support after some more uninvolved users have left their comments. But two image things that could be done is to link and attribute the base map this map was cropped from[2] on the file description, and add the source for the size given in this size estimate[3] in the file description there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are done. For the first image, the base was already in the description, so I added it under Other Versions as the base map. However, I am considering using the base .svg instead, with a locator to indicate where the formation is (if I figure out how to add the red dot things). IJReid ^discuss 02:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, then that at least won't be a problem during the image review. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with the caveat that I GA reviewed the article. This article proves that comprehensive and interesting accounts can be written about obscure dinosaurs known from very little material (most of our other dinosaur FAs are about much more completely known and famous animals). FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment from Jim

I'm happy to support this well-written article, just one minor point though. In the body of the text, when you name a person you put, for example, British paleontologist Richard Owen. Wouldn't it be more helpful to put this fuller description at the first mention instead of just "Owen"? At first glance, I thought Nopsa might be an acronym until I hovered on the link! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I have fixed your comment, moving the "british/south african/hungarian paleontologist" to the first mention of each person in the lead. IJReid ^discuss 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Cas Liber

Reading now...

~~approximately 145.5–136.4 million years ago - flows oddly, try "approximately 145.5 to 136.4 million years ago" or "between 145.5 and 136.4 million years ago"~~

Ok, chose the second option. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link taxon

Which taxon? Anthodon and Palaeoscincus are both linked. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I meant taxon as it is a bit not plain English Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops :P It's linked now. IJReid ^discuss 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot about this. Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad image and source reviews take so long, otherwise this article would be a FA right now. :-P IJReid ^discuss 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber

References formatted consistently.

Spot checking....

~~FN 13, ref does mention meaning "flower tooth"....but it is in Latin so bit of a stretch....~~

I change the reference to the original description, which I guess is a little less of a stretch, even though it only says something like "... teeth resembling a polyapteous (idk spelling?) flower, for which the genus was named". IJReid ^discuss 05:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FN 18, checks out - used twice and material faithful to source

FN 14, used once - I can't see where Coombs uses species epithet in this....

I checked in Galton & Coombs, and it turns out that I had the wrong source for that part, although apparently Coombs first used the binomial in a different 1978 publication by Olshevsky. I've also changed the classification reference to use Coombs (1978) instead of Glut mentioning Coombs' classification. IJReid ^discuss 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the Dutch article[4] indicates that Coomb's first used the recombination in a 1971 dissertation, and that the name was therefore not valid until properly published in 1978... Perhaps MWAK has something to add? FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Coombs apparently first used the combination in: W.P. Coombs, 1971, The Ankylosauridae. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, 487 pp, as an invalid nomen ex dissertatione. The first valid publication was in Olshevsky, G., 1978, "The Archosaurian Taxa (excluding the Crocodylia)", Mesozoic Meanderings 1, pp. 1-50, referring to Coombs (1971), not to be confused with W.P. Coombs, 1978, "The families of the ornithischian dinosaur order Ankylosauria", Palaeontology 21(1): 143-170. As an aside, the article presently claims that the type species (Paleoscincus africanus) is a junior synonym of the combinatio nova (Paranthodon africanus) which is an impossibility!--MWAK (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have finally sorted this out in the article. The statement about Coombs' dissertation is now referenced to Olshevsky's publication, and the sentence about the synonymy has also been modified to fit with what would be correct (they are still listed in the synonyms, because they are former names that are not to be used instead). IJReid ^discuss 23:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FN 15, checks out - used twice and material faithful to source (also corroborates other material in article)

Image review from RL0919

Most files appear to be appropriately sourced and licensed on Commons, including sourcing for the factual claims represented by the images. Most of the sources are paywalled, but since source review was already passed, I'm willing to assume these sources are good also.
Captions all seem appropriate.
None of the images have WP:ALT text for accessibility. As far as I know, alt text for images is not explicitly required for FA, but it would be good to provide.
The only item I want to question is File:Anthodon.png. The source is given as an 1876 book with a Google Books link. Certainly public domain if that is the source. However, the link goes to a general description for the book, not a specific page. No page number is provided and I could not find the image using Google's search function. Can you provide more specific information to verify where this image is within the book?

I believe the question on the Anthodon image is the only thing that needs to be resolved for FA image review. --RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll add alt text now, and I'll locate the page on Owen (1876) with the image (although I do understand how 500 pages isn't something anyone wants to look through). IJReid ^discuss 05:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added alt text and specified on the image page of the Anthodon image what plate and page the image was on (Plate XIII Page 126). Is this satisfactory? IJReid ^discuss 05:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source confirmed. I think we're good on images. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Is "Holtz, T.R. Jr. (2007). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. Random House Books for Young Readers" really a high quality reliable source? I'm not sure a book from the series "Random House Books for Young Readers" is really high quality. The WorldCat entry says "Elementary and junior high school"

This is one of the better book sources, being written by a paleontologist for a younger audience. That doesn't change the fact that it has accurate information in it, it just has less complex language then something like Predatory Dinosaurs of the World or Princeton Field Guide. (I removed the ending of the publisher anyways, I don't think thats part of their actual name) IJReid ^discuss 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool shows no obvious plagarism.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it was an utterly unreliable source, I'd have opposed the nomination. I just have concerns that it might not meet the definition of "high quality". I'll leave it here for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we are almost there, but I'd like to hear Ealdgyth's opinion about the Dinosaurs book before this is promoted. My inclination is to share her concern, and I wonder if there is an alternative source to circumvent the problem? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Holtz's estimate is in the appendix itself as well..... would the book citation be necessary at all? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The appendix is already referenced alongside the book. I believe I have referenced a more recent version of the appendix than you linked however. IJReid ^discuss 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 version is broken, it leads to a 404. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, Gregory Paul's Field guide simply says the size is uncertain, so it might be good to note this in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Firsfron

Support, as the original creator of this article back in March 2006. I'm definitely happy to see this article filled in and fully referenced. Thanks for your efforts, IJReid and team. Nice work on an article about what is basically just one partial skull. Checking the Paleobiology Database, it looks as though every paper on the Paranthodon skull has been referenced; seems very comprehensive. I copyedited the article and am satisfied with the prose.

A concern has been raised about the quality of one source, Holtz's book, but the author, Thomas Holtz, is a highly-respected vertebrate paleontologist, and although his book is meant for general readers, the quality of his work is definitely not a concern for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I think there is a consensus to promote here, but just a few points that struck me. I would appreciate if someone could at least take a look at them, but they are not enough to hold this up any longer. There also seems to be consensus that the Holtz book is a reliable source. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Atherstone published about the find in 1857": Is there a better way to phrase this?
This needs a quick check for WP:HOWEVER; it's probably OK but we could maybe remove one or two.
"Only in 1876 did Owen name a series of specimens from the collection as Anthodon serrarius": Is there a way to rephrase this to avoid the use of "did" here?
In the lead, we state "After years of storage in the British Museum of Natural History" but this is not directly mentioned in the main body. I suppose it is implied so this isn't enough to hold up promotion, but it would be better stated more explicitly.
"Due to present conventions, the specific name was later emended to owenii.": The mix of tenses is a little confusing here. If this was a while ago, it cannot be "present conventions". A date might clarify this slightly.
A minor point, but the "Paleoecology" section might be better earlier, but that is more of a style/preference thing.
I'm not too sure about the value of the all the alt text as written here. It might be worth asking RexxS to look if he has a moment. Again, this is not enough to hold up promotion but we should try to follow best practice. Any issues could be taken up on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 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.