Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Cetiosauriscus/archive1

TFA blurb review

Cetiosauriscus was a sauropod dinosaur that lived between 166 and 164 million years ago, during the Middle Jurassic. It was a herbivore with a moderately long tail and long forelimbs, compared to other sauropods. It has been estimated at about 15 metres (49 ft) long and between 4 and 10 tonnes (3.9 and 9.8 long tons; 4.4 and 11.0 short tons) in weight. Its only known fossil includes a hindlimb and most of the rear half of a skeleton. Found in Cambridgeshire, England, in the 1890s, it was described by Arthur Smith Woodward in 1905 as a new specimen of the species Cetiosaurus leedsi, which was moved to the new genus Cetiosauriscus in 1927 by Friedrich von Huene. In 1980, Alan Charig proposed the current name Cetiosauriscus stewarti. The fossil was found in the marine deposits of the Oxford Clay Formation alongside many invertebrate groups, marine ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and crocodylians, a single pterosaur, and various dinosaurs, including an ankylosaur, stegosaurs, and an ornithopod. (Full article...)

Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to use the genus name as article title/link, as that's where the focus of most dinosaur articles lie. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved the species name further down, does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear in the current blurb that the genus is a separate concept from the species. The history of the species is somewhat complicated and I'm guessing it won't fit in the blurb. But the basic ideas are: a) Cetiosaurus leedsi was moved to Cetiosauriscus leedsi; b) the name Cetiosauriscus leedsi was discarded as it was based on dubious remains, and the species only contains Cetiosauriscus stewarti, named by Charig from more complete fossils. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're at 1009 characters; the max is 1025. Choices have to be made. The article lead says that there was only one fossil find that was later named Cetiosauriscus; were there two? - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a way to make this clearer is to write

"Found in Cambridgeshire, England, in the 1890s, it was described by Arthur Smith Woodward in 1905 as a new specimen of the species Cetiosaurus leedsi, which was moved to the new genus Cetiosauriscus in 1927 by Friedrich von Huene. In 1980, Alan Charig proposed the current name Cetiosauriscus stewarti for the specimen, since the holotype of Cetiosaurus leedsi was dubious."

Since this puts you over the word/character/space count, you can cut out some of the taxa it lived alongside to just say "an ankylosaur, stegosaurs, and an ornithopod" IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: there being two specimens, they are "NHMUK R3078 and the C. leedsi type specimen", which were moved by Huene to Cetiosauriscus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, but it put us at 1095, so I deleted the last part. Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who wrote the article I have to say, as much as the way it is now lacks accuracy, it is probably the best way for general readers to get a sense of understanding about it. Its a very convoluted history so I think summarizing it like this is the best you can do with the space you have. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. This was a tough one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - is there any reason why the first link to Cetiosauriscus is not italicized (as is usually done for genus names)? I'm not very involved with TFA so I don't know if there's some kind of convention about this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]