Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peloneustes/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 June 2021 [1].

Peloneustes

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about perhaps the most completely known short-necked pliosaurid, a group of plesiosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles with four flippers. This is also the first FAC for a Jurassic plesiosaur. Peloneustes has had quite a long history, and a great deal has been said about it in the literature, so I've done my best to cover all important aspects of its history, anatomy, and biology in the article. This is my first time at FAC on my own, though I have been a co-nominator for two other articles. In addition to GAN and PR, this article has also passed through the WP:PALEOPR page. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might even be the first pliosaur at FAC, period? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I think that you're right about this (it wasn't the first at GAN, which is probably why this didn't cross my mind). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Peloneustes and Pliosaurus andrewsi Mandibles.png, File:Peloneustes Skeletal Mount from Andrews (1910).png, File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png, File:Peloneustes Crania and Teeth.jpg, File:Peloneustes Middle Cervical Vertebrae.png, File:Peloneustes Pectoral Girdle Andrews.png, File:Peloneustes Pelvic Girdle Andrews.png, File:Simolestes Skull Dorsal View.png, File:Liopleurodon Skull Dorsal View - Extracted.png, File:Peloneustes Paddles.png — claimed to be PD because "author's life plus 70 years or fewer", but no death date given. You can fix that by adding the death date (I assume it's known and actually 70+ years ago) in the image description. (For works before 1901, if you don't know the death year, {{PD-old-assumed}} plus a US PD tag may be used).
I've added the "deathyear" parameter to all of these, except for File:Peloneustes Skull Jaccard.png. I couldn't find anything online about Jaccard's death date. Adding {{PD-old-assumed}} creates a template stating that the image was published more than 120 years ago, which is not quite true by six years. What should be done in this case? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't show it's public domain in both the source country and the US, it would have to be removed. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative is to upload it locally on English Wikipedia, where only US copyright applies. Like this image:[2] Then the Commons version should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for deletion and removed it from the article. I think that it might just be easier to use another image from an older source (such as Andrews' skull paper) in its place. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could also move another image already in the article up there to make it less crammed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the image of the paddles up to that place (as it has some relevance as they came from the Leeds Collection) and the life restoration down to where they used to be. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other image licensing looks OK.
  • I would consider scaling up images. I have mine set to display larger than the default and I still have trouble seeing the full details of the images.
I've scaled up the ones I felt could be larger. How do these look, and are there any others that could use larger sizes? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. This is somewhat subjective as it depends a lot on your display settings. (t · c) buidhe 07:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandwiching in Palaeobiology section
I've moved the life restoration up into classification. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ....that was around 30–50 metres (98–164 ft) deep.. - nitpicky but I'd round this to "that was around 30–50 metres (100–170 ft) deep"
I think that I've implemented this, although I'm not sure how to change it from 160 to 170. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As seen in other pliosaurs, the pelvis of Peloneustes bears very large and flat ischia and pubes. - usually the use of "very" is discouraged - do you think is justified here?
Probably not. I removed it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe put Henry Porter's ccupation in...was he a miner or paleontologist....
Some cursory research seems to suggest he was a geologist. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consists of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae - I'd leave this in the past tense (i.e. "In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consisted of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae") to align with the past-tense narrative flow here. Reads weirdly otherwise I think
I'd prefer to keep this in present tense, putting it in past tense could imply that some parts of the specimen were lost. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, valid point too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By then, PIN 426 had suffered from heavy damage. - err....what from?
Pyrite damage. I originally explained this, but it was pointed out that this could be excessive detail considering the specimen almost certainly belongs to Pliosaurus, so I removed it. I could reinstate this if it would be helpful. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, back then I suggested you should remove the details about how this damage works, not what kind of damage it was, must have missed it, I think the term "pyrite damage" should have been left in. This was the part I meant back then: "(a buildup of iron sulphate crystals in specimens containing pyrite due to oxidation and exposure to moisture, leading to cracking)". But who knows, maybe someone thinks it would also be appropriate to leave that explanation in. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, re-added "pyrite". Sorry for the overcorrection! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good read and I only have the few tiny nitpicks above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented or explained why I didn't yet implement all of the above comments. All your copyedits to the article look good! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens

[edit]
  • I had my say already during the review, and have little to add. But see below for a few more quibbles:
  • The premaxilla (front upper tooth-bearing bone) of Peloneustes bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw are narrow; these are characteristic features of this pliosaurid. – This second part of the sentence does not say much/says what is expected anyways. Maybe remove or start the sentence with "Characteristically, the premaxilla …"?
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some issues with singular/plural in the description part. You gou "The premaxilla" (singular) but then you have "nasals" and "frontals" in plural. Then you have "The frontals (bones bordering the orbit)", which sounds that there is only a single orbit, bordered by two frontals. And it continues: "contact both the orbit and the external nares" – orbit is singular, external nares is plural.
While planning an expansion to another pliosaurid article (currently all off-wiki), I began to wonder if my writing might have this problem. I've tried to pluralize paired skull bones and fenestrae, though I'm not totally sure how to make it clear that there is one bone bordering one fenestra on each side. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link palate, palatine bone, and parasphenoid?
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parasphenoid (a bone that articulates with the lower front part of the braincase) bears a long cultriform process (a frontwards projection of the braincase) – The first explanation implies that the parasphenoid is not part of the braincase (but I would say it is), while the second explanation implies that the cultriform process is part of the braincase.
Looking at Noè's thesis (which has a handy chapter on pliosaurid skull osteology), it looks like the parasphenoid is indeed part of the braincase. I've amended the explanation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to use many technical terms, but some of them may be avoided, which can only help the reader. For example, you could just replace "orbit" with "eye opening"; alveoli with "tooth socket", and autapomorphy with "unique feature". The respective technical terms should be pipe linked but there is no real need to mention them (one rule is "don't use technical terms just to teach them").
I've changed alveoli, autapomorphy, orbit, and caudal fin to more familiar terms. Is there anything else that should be changed? I'm not really sure what the cutoff is for when to use a technical term. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I talked with FunkMonk about this recently, and the conclusion was that we could avoid technical terms whenever reasonable and relatively unambiguous substitutes in plain English exist (which is the case, for example, in alveolus -> tooth socket). But most of the time, such nice common English words just do not exist, so the technical term is required.
Another term you could replace is "external naris" -> "bony nostril". And btw., I am not sure if "eye opening" or "eye socket" is better. The latter seems to be more common and is the term used for humans, but we don't have much of a socket in these reptiles. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bony nostril" sounds rather strange to me, and I worry it implies that the entirety of the external nares were taken up by the nostrils, so I think that it would be better to stick with the more technical term here. I think that "eye socket" may be the better term here, just because that's its only meaning in English (whereas "orbit" and "eye opening" are more commonly used to refer to other things). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rami (sides of the mandible) – maybe just "the left and right branches" to be clearer and avoid another term + explanation? To many explanatory glosses can also make it tedious to read.
Just changed to "the two sides of the mandible". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ventral rami of the two scapulae – again, this becomes very technical. Why not use "lower" instead of "ventral"?
I think that these are the actual names of the structures (like "cultriform process"), which is why I didn't change them when I otherwise removed all references to anatomical direction. I can still change it to something like "lower projection" if that would be preferable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such combinations (e.g., ventral rami) are usually descriptive in nature and used ad hoc, and not so much defined terms. Not sure about this particular example though. I think a substitute would be fine (maybe just "lower part", to indicate that it is quite a bit of the bone?), but the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since "lower projection" doesn't seem to imply that the feature's very big, and "lower part" could also be used to describe the entire underside of the bone, I think that I'll stick with the more technical term here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

[edit]

Going point-by-point through WIAFA:

  • 1a: Prose seems to be good, although I note that prose is not really my area of expertise. Some technical terms such as chaparral and Callovian need explanation, though.
I've replaced chaparral with Mediterranean climate, as this is likely more understandable and the link goes to the correct place. I'm not really sure how to explain things like Callovian and Oxfordian though, beyond stating that they're geological stages. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Resolution Guyot I used inline parentheticals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the approximate time intervals for the stages. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b: Only thing I am missing is discussions on why it went extinct.
I've elaborated a bit more on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Again not my area of expertise, but it seems like the number of sources used relative to those in Google Scholar indicates that research was thorough. Inline cites used thorough, several old sources are used appropriately. No source jumps out as questionable.
  • 1d: Seems to fit.
  • 1e: OK.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test shows no issues.
  • 2a and 2b seem to fit.
  • 2c: Some of the citations have inconsistent identifiers, seems like.
What exactly are inconsistent identifiers? Is this when the links don't all lead to the same place? (Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the finer points of citation style, I tried searching the MOS for this term, but I couldn't find anything). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: There are a lot of images, which are all suitably placed. I don't see any ALT text anywhere. I can't find the licence of File:Peloneustes Holotype Rostrum.svg. I take none of the images is outdated? Sometimes later reconstructions are different from previous ones.
The holotype rostrum image was drawn by myself, following the photographs (and, to a lesser extent, interpretive drawings) in the paper cited in the image description. The line drawing of the whole skeleton is outdated (the uncrushed skull shape wasn't yet known), but it is labeled as "1913 skeletal reconstruction based on the above mount". I'll begin adding alt text. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the alt text now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support here, in the sense that, since I am not an expert on prose or the subject matter, my support here should not be held any legitimate concern about either prose or subject matter raised from here forward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I still haven't addressed the issue of the inconsistent identifiers, as far as I know. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon checking carefully, it seems like most of the inconsistency is because not all the sources have the same identifiers, or because the bots that add them didn't make a pass yet. I wouldn't consider these critical issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Always had an interest in extinct reptiles, although I wouldn't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable in this area. I hope to get to this soon; it looks like an interesting read. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With a total length of 3.5–4 metres (11–13 ft), Peloneustes is not a large pliosaurid." - Would "was" be better than "is" here since the varmint is extinct? I can see a case for either way.
Since this is still true, I prefer to keep "is", using "was" only for things like unknown tissue and behavior. Using "was" here could imply that larger specimens have since been found, that most other pliosaurids were grossly overestimated in size, or that these larger species were removed from Pliosauridae. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the catalog number CAMSM J.46913 or CAMSM J.16913? Both are used in the first paragraph of the body
It's the former, I've corrected it in the article --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend moving the link for caracoid up to where the term is first used, as its not going to be a familiar term to many.
Corrected placement --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a complete pelvis save for an ischium;" - ischium probably is not a familiar term. It is link as ischia later in the article; recommend moving the link up to here where it is first used
Corrected placement --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the sclerotic ring mentioned in the research history isn't found in the description. Should this be included, or was the skeleton with the sclerotic ring one of the ones later reclassified?
Added a sentence. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following cladogram follows Fischer and colleagues, 2017" - who is Fischer?
Added first name. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Oceans of Kansas page a high-quality RS? It appears to be self-published by Ben Creisler and is marked as "under construction" yet
Oceans of Kansas is the website of paleontologist Mike Everhart, who has published a great deal on plesiosaurs. Ben Creisler is well-known for his work on the etymology of scientific names. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perssons, P. O. "A revision of the classification of the Plesiosauria with a synopsis of the stratigraphical and geographical distribution of the group" (PDF). Lunds Universitets Arsskrift. 59 (1): 1–59." needs the publishing date
Added, not sure how I missed that. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing where "Temporal range: 166.1–163.5 Ma" in the infobox is supported in the article
Hmm, that was there when I started expanding the article, so I'm not entirely sure where it comes from myself. This time span represents the whole Callovian, but the sources cited in the article state that Peloneustes only lived during either the middle Callovian or the late early to early late Callovian, neither of which seem to have any official dates attached to them. I'm not sure what to do here, perhaps just state "Callovian" in the taxobox and cite this with the ICS source (currently ref 45)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Callovian (or maybe "Middle Callovian" if that's the strongest sourcing) would be the best thing to do here. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just "Callovian" is actually used the most for the Peterborough Member, so I've kept it at that in the updated taxobox. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to the best of my knowledge besides the points above. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on WP:FACR #1a, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; did not check or not confident assessing others. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will also attempt to conduct one of these. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add the accessdate for Creisler
I just added today's date (the cited information's still there). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the parameter indicating the language for non-English sources (Jaccard 1907, Linder 1913)
Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philips 1971 needs page numbers
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • McHenry 2009 seems to be almost 500 pages long; it'll need exact page numbers
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noe 2001 may need page numbers; how long is the thesis?
Well over 300 pages, so I think that it does. It may take some time to track down the page numbers for everything, especially for the heavily cited publications. I'll try to get this done over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martill 1991 is an entire book chapter; can we at least get a page range for the chapter?
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrews 1910 needs page numbers; again looks like it may be an entire book
Added for both volumes. I believe that I've finished adding page numbers to everything needing them. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a handful of spot checks and will post results at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Peloneustes/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 26 June 2021 (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/Peloneustes/archive1&oldid=1030956282"