Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xixiasaurus/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) 13 February 2019 [1].

Xixiasaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a troodontid dinosaur, a group noted for their comparatively large brains and well-developed senses (to the extent that they were once suggested to have evolved into reptilian humanoids if they hadn't gone extinct). This particular genus is not a very remarkable member of the group, but I chose it because, unlike more famous troodontids, it has many free images, and a pretty simple taxonomic history without much controversy. Having been named relatively recently, and being known from few remains, not much has been published about it, so this should be a very complete account of the subject. If anyone wonders, what appears to be the same skull image is used twice because one version includes interpretative lines that obscure details, and the other (used in the infobox) doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

I think I've said before that you make something of a rod for your own back with so much technical language. I appreciate that's unavoidable to some extent, but one example that struck me is "orbita", unlinked and unexplained. I assume it means "eye-socket", so why not say so instead of using a Latinate term? I also note that maxillary process opens three consecutive sentences. More comments may follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one problem is of course when something is linked an explained far earlier, will the average reader remember what a word they never heard of before means after first explanation? In this case, the word is explained in the description section: "The rim of the orbit (eye socket)" But I think I can maybe stick to more informal language after the description section? Without making the article look too inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "orbita" in the biology section, and made one of the "maxillary process" sentences begin differently for variation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that I hadn't finished here. With most minor quibbles having been picked up by others, I couldn't find anything worth nitpicking about, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

Hendrickx, C.; Hartman, S. A.; Mateus, O. (2015). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added ISSN, but I see no other identifiers to add. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting all looks nice. Well done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Wading through now - looks okay, I can see where Jim is coming from with worries about technical language, but I am struggling to see anywhere that any plainer words can be slotted in (e.g. "maxilla" isn't quite "upper jaw") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if there are more things I can somehow simplify, otherwise feel free to make suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I glossed "secondary palate", "nutrient foramina", "postorbital bones", and "lacrimal bones". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is some repetition in places, e.g. in lead we have "Unlike other troodontids"...."Unlike in most troodontids" ...."It was unique among troodontids". However I can't see an easy way around this.~~

I changed one to "Uniquely among troodontids". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..~~100 millimetres (3.9 in) long~~ ~~- should that be 4 in?~~

Added sigfig=1, which did the job. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the front end of the dentary of the lower jaw was downturned - this is hard to visualise - does one of the images illustrate this?

It is actually shown in the image next to that text (fig b is the front of the lower jaw). It gives it a little "chin", and though that would be an easier way to describe it, the source doesn't say it like that. I also tried to show it in the restoration, though it is pretty small. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Troodontids had some of the highest encephalization quotients among non-avian dinosaurs, a measure of the ratio between predicted brain size and body size.~~ ~~- I'd put the meaning in parentheses right next to "encephalization quotients"~~

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little to complain about overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok then support on comrehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

Disclosure: I copy edited this for GOCE. Not that it needed much.

And thanks for both, this certainly needs a "layman" review in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of comparisons "with other troodontids". An idea of the number of other troodontid spices there are, even if approximate and qualified, might assist readers in judging the usefulness of the comparisons.

I'm always wary of giving a specific number because it will change practically every year. But I wonder if the cladogram (which essentially works as a list too) doesn't get the job done? I also added "only thirteen taxa were known at the time Xixiasaurus was named", which avoids giving a number that will have to be updated forever. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"while the specific name refers to the Henan Province" I think that the (second) "the" should go.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could process be linked at first mention?

Didn't know there was an article, done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could alveoli be linked to Dental alveolus?

Yeah, but it now links to the dinogloss[2], which has a more specific entry. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2016, the palaeontologists Alexander Averianov and Hans-Dieter Sues did not recover a clade formed of troodontids with unserrated teeth" The word "recover" makes this opaque to the non-specialist. Is there some other way of phrasing it?

Said "identify" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lü and colleagues discussed the previous arguments about troodontid diet" This doesn't really make sense to me; what "previous arguments"?

Refers to the two studies mentioned earlier in the section. How about "Lü and colleagues discussed the previous studies of troodontid diet"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very solid piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you made some good points, which should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were minor fiddling really. This is a seriously good article. I like the way you have addressed them, so happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feared it would read like gibberish for non-experts, so I'm glad you liked it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what source(s) support the representations in File:Xixiasaurus_Size_Comparison_by_PaleoGeek.svg and File:Byronosaurus.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to both. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of stalling, so I'll ping some dino project FAC regulars in case they have something to say: IJReid, PaleoGeekSquared, Lusotitan, as well as Jimfbleak, if he has more to add. FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by IJReid

~~Year of discovery known?~~

Unfortunately, none of the sources give any additional info about its discovery (and only one paper exists that covers this taxon in depth)... Perhaps there is some obscure press release in Chinese, but I wouldn't know... FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~"(only thirteen taxa were known at the time Xixiasaurus was named)" maybe specify troodontids since its a bit ambiguous when following "small dinosaurs are more common".~~

Said "troodontid taxa". FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe mention whatever the Daliansaurus phylogeny mentions for Xixiasaurus or an unserrated clade, before just showing their analysis without any other information.~~

Sadly doesn't say anything about it (though they are small, Daliansaurus does have serrations, so the issue is outside their focus). FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three subsequent sentences are begun with U- words in the lede, "Uniquely", "Unlike", and then "It was unique". This causes a weird affect of seemingly repetitive beginnings, so I'd suggest something is changed about it but I can't put my finger on what. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded some of it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, that was fast. Article reads great, others have put forward all comments I'd have thought of. I think it's ready. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One more clade down... FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

Not really much to say; it seems like all sources are reasonable, well formatted and there are no obvious omissions from a Google Scholar search. Image licenses add up and they all seem to be pertinent; no comment on captions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2019 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.