Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Segnosaurus/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) 15 February 2020 [1].

Segnosaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation
Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.
Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.
  • There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?
  • Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.
Yes, forgot this one; yes, since the skull, beak, and neck are unknown, it is a bit misleading to say that they were. Much of it is inference from logic or related animals. But I have now reduced it in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?
Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?
Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers. — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.
They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, that makes sense now.
  • Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?
None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation
Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandible and lower dentition

  • at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?
Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranial skeleton

  • Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.
Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?
It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.
Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

  • First sentence should be split up.
Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.
Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • be most basal clade — What does this mean?
Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.
Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

  • Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.
Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • precocial, capabale of locomotion from birth — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?
Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[2][3], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[4] and one Polish[5] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.
I wonder whether they would even know, if the eggs are from Mongolia, they were possibly illegally exported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diet and feeding

  • they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?
In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • facultative herbivory — facultatively?
If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.
I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)
Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?
Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?
Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.
Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.
I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38 — Identifier?
None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.
I went with that, thanks.FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?
Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.
  • 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".
Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 52 — Pages 1–16, no?
Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I tried to fix the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinator
[edit]

Just a note that I would have no problem if the review of references above is treated as the source review. The sources are clearly of appropriate quality, and I've gone through each of the references to ensure that they are correctly and consistently formatted. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?
Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."
Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very fond of double image clutter. I think the current distribution works fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At up to 7 metres long, it was pretty big, though larger ones of course existed (up to 10 metres long). But then again, some taxa were only two metres long, so it would be in the larger category. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty sure I linked that article at some point, perhaps removed during copy-edit. Now at replaced its teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "teeth with a low replacement rate" in Paleobiology which seems notable in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the rate has anything to do with physical description, has more to do with physiology/biology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would lead readers to think it is just structurally the same as our shoulder girdles; dinosaurs had their scapulae and coracoids fused together. So though it is technically a shoulder girdle, precision is needed to note the important difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link and explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganised as:" In 1979, Perle noted the Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs, which he named Segnosauridae, with Segnosaurus as type genus and sole member. He tentatively classified Segnosauridae as theropods, traditionally thought of as the "meat-eating" dinosaurs, pointing to similarities in the mandible and its front teeth." FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was when it was found (but that doesn't say much, as it was the only one recognised at the time), but it was surpassed by Alxasaurus in 1993 (as mentioned in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added some info for both mentioned land-bridges. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a composite of various segnosaurs/therizinosaurs, not Segnosaurus itself. Now added "(a composite of various genera)" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Segnosauria is obsolete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not in 1984, it is a compsite of what a "segnosaur" was thought to be at the time. I thought it would be misleading to say therizinosaur retroactively, but since it is outside the classification section, I have added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The endocranium is the inner surface of the brain cavity. The braincase is the bony encasement of the brain cavity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, the paper doens't really even make it clear that the nest in question was subterraneous, so I was always a bit unsure about the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turtles don't have teeth, though, I guess it is the combination that seems odd, but the source doesn't specify. The combination of beaks and teeth are otherwise only known in dinosaurs thought to be herbivorous (or omnivorous), which is mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some extinct birds had teeth, like Ichthyornis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperornis too, among many others, both thought to have been piscivorous funnily enough, which would doubtlessly be known to David Norman. Hard to say what he was thinking, but I assume that he was thinking of the context of dinosaurs alone, where only herbivorous/omnivorous ones werre thought to have had beaks (before birds were universally thought of as dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good you asked, I overlooked a bit of his argument, which doesn't seem particularly sensible either, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm understand still, "suggested that therizinosaurs could have been tied to nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems, though perhaps indirectly, by feeding on wasps which had themselves fed on carrion of aquatic vertebrates" seems like a big stretch. Why did he suggest it was tied to aquatic ecosystems in the first place? Why wasps? I'm sure there's lot of things that eat dead aquatic animals. It just seems so random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit baffling; review articles just state he suggested they fed on wasps, but it is actually a much more specific argument, and I actually explain it more in detail than other review articles. I'll quote him in full, then you can say whether you think I should go into more detail: "Considering the frequently occurring carnivory of wasps, their ability (at least in some forms) to process even relatively large carrion of vertebrates (particularly fishes) by means of their large mandibles and also feed their larvae on carrion, and considering the frequent mass deaths of fishes, amphibians, and other aquatic vertebrates in the zone of interbasin channels (regarding the mechanism responsible for their death see Ro_ek and Nessov [1993] and Part 3 of this volume), one could assume that the segnosaurs from the Coniacian of Dzharakuduk, like many other terrestrial vertebrates at that time, could have become part of food chains tied to the nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems. Segnosaurs, however, could have done this indirectly, obtaining part of the energyflow through wasps and wasp-like Hymenoptera, whereas large pterosaurs (Pl. I, fig. 18) collected food from the surface of open areas of basins. Therefore, Rozhdestvensky (1970, 1976) may at least be partially correct in his assumption that segnosaurs possessing huge claws fed on social insects." FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"(Whoever said this) suggested that, since wasps and their larvae have been known to scavenge off large vertebrate carcasses—namely fish—and there were frequent mass deaths among aquatic vertebrates in Coniacian of Dzharakuduk/wherever, it is possible that wasps or wasp-like insects were in abundance, and were consequently eaten by local segnosaurs and other contemporaneous terrestrial vertebrates."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to come up with something when I get home, the thing is he is also trying to make a general point about therizinosaur diet, since he draws parallels with earlier suggestions of them eating insects. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more details, with emphasis on what I think is the take home message. It isn't really important to therizinosaurs what exact food these wasps were eating or why. And we shouldn't be giving too much undue weight to Nessov's sometimes odd views. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lautenschlager found that these would not have been used for digging, which would have been done with the foot claws because, as in other maniraptorans, feathers on the forelimbs would have interfered with this function" you're missing a "because" somewhere in there, and this seems to imply that all maniraptorans dug   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "since". The source implies digging even more strongly, so I have actually toned it down: "While the large body size largely rules out the possibility of burrow digging in therizinosaurs, troodontids and dromaeosaurids most probably used their hindlimbs and pedal claws for digging [33,34], as feathering on the forelimbs would have interfered with manus digging [35]. The same can likely be assumed for therizinosaurs and other feathered Maniraptoriformes, such as oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "(always returning to the same site to breed)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part of the sentence is an explanation of what "isognathously" means. I have linked occlusion and added "(contacted each other)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't really good, logical ways to split this. Everything past the first paragraph mainly covers hypotheses that are presently considered likely. And those sources discuss many different, interrelated aspects of feeding that can't really be seperated easily. I'd prefer it as it is, chronologically, and it doens't seem like other reviewers have felt it necessary to divide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would partially have been a lake, not featured one, which is awkward to phrase. I added "(representing lakes)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could also say "could have had a lake" or "was a lakeside environment" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source I found for the information below consolidates some of those older findings, now "The deposits of these formations reflect alluvial cycles of meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain (flat land consisting of sediments deposited by highland rivers) with a semi-arid climate." Doesn't exactly make it simpler, I have a hard time explaining "alluvial cycles", perhaps Jens Lallensack can help? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the alluvial cycle in this case is supposed to be. Maybe better simplify to "The sediments were deposited by rivers and within lakes on an alluvial plane". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The sediments of these formations were deposited by meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only additional source I could find (didn't turn up in Google Scholar when I had looked before) states it was semi-arid, added. It is pretty rare that detailed studies of formations have been done in most of the non-Western world, so they aren't necessarily to be expected. Also added a conference abstract that mentions a possible fourth therizinosaur in the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • during the Late Cretaceous in what is now known as Mongolia.—that's unneeded, I doubt that the dinos had a name for it.
Not sure how that popped back in actually, thought I had removed it (added by copy-editor). I've changed it to "in what is now southeastern Mongolia". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been bipedal and the trunk of its body would have been tilted upwards. The head would have been (also in Description) —repetitive and could be replaced by plain "was"
You mean the "would have"? it is to be careful as all of that is just inference; how it carried itself, as well as some of the features that are unknown for this prticular genus, such as the skull and neck. I'm wary of saying "it had a small skull and a long neck", when we really can only say this because we know its relatives did. Likewise, can't say outright it had feathers, because such are only known definitely from its relatives. So I tried to restrict "was" to known parts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bore large claws—(in lead) how many?
Changed to: " The forelimbs were robust and had three fingers which bore large claws". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • paleontologist Altangerel Perle, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno—I get told off for using false titles when I do this, apparently should be "the… etc
Heh, I get told something new at every other nomination. I don't personally care, I just let the copy-editor decide, which was the case here. Added "the" because it's easy enough to do those few places. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but not appressed—I've never seen that word so link, explain or replace I think
Changed to "but not pressed closely together". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the genus Therizinosaurus itself was originally identified as a turtle—"turtles"?

Changed to "(the forelimb elements of Therizinosaurus itself were originally identified as belonging to a giant turtle when described in 1954)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregory S. Paul —probably repetitive to give the job where it's palaeontologist, but perhaps for someone like him precede hname with what he does
I had "paleontologist" in front of every new name, but they were removed by the copy-editor except for in the discovery section. I can see how it is a bit redundant after the first dozen mentions (and it'll be quote some work to add it back), so I'm not sure what to do... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues—if there is no link, perhaps state what they do
Like above, I'd like the consistency, but it was removed by the copy-editor, so I assume they thought it says without going after the first few times (every person mentioned in this article is a paleontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that if you put multiple links to your source in a ref, eg url and doi, the url will be removed at some stage as superfluous, although personally I can't see the harm
I think it's only when they link to the same destination they are removed automatically by bots. If I have a DOI for an old Ibis article, I can still use a different link to its Archive.org version, for example, and it won't be removed. But if the DOI is for, say, an open access PLOSONE article, the DOI leads to the exact same place as the URL, making either redundant. But that also goes for paywalled articles. So I personally find it more clear/helpful knowing that when a title has a link, it's because it will go to a place different than the DOI, where I might get to read the otherwise paywalled article. If every title is a link, I can't tell a redundant link from a helpful one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point with the first comment is that just "in Mongolia" would do; since there were no humans then to name the region, it's not as if it had a different name in the age of the dinosaurs. Anyway, no big deal so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I usually write "what is now" because often an area covered by a modern country may have been divided or submerged at the time... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
It looks like all images are placed in well suited sections and are pertinent to the article. I'll defer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review with regards to their factual accuracy. Regarding the individual files:
  • File:Segnosaurus Scale.svg: Given that this is a derivative file of two others and one of them is not PD, it needs to mention the license of the other file.
I'll ping the creator, Slate Weasel. But yeah, I guess the solution is to add the licenses of the original files. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The silhouette is completely original (different neck angle, jaws closed, limbs posed differently, filaments added, etc. etc.), with the skeletal being used as a reference for proportions and size, so I'm pretty sure that this doesn't qualify as a derivative work of the skeletal. Is this reasoning correct, FunkMonk? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The human is taken directly from the other image, right? So at least that license should be copied over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but is it necessary? The human's under CC0, which I thought didn't even require attribution. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, back to Jo-Jo Eumerus on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking closely, it seems like the dinosaur silhouette might be too derived to be a derivative work. The human ... I've seen some spirited discussions about CC-0 and actual PD status, perhaps better to mention the license as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added indication of the human's license. Anything else that needs to be done with this chart or is this good? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's all sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated on the first page of the PDF version, but the entire journal is CC, as can be seen here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I drew it on myself, with proportions based on illustrations of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to warn people that it is not anatomically accurate anymore, but used to illustrate historical views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, none of the images has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm unsure whether they're needed or not these days. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK they are a good idea but not mandatory. Sometimes you don't need one (for purely decorative images) or you can't do one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 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/Segnosaurus/archive1&oldid=940912477"