Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Podokesaurus/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) 1 January 2021 [1].

Podokesaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first dinosaur discovered and named by a woman (Mignon Talbot in 1911), and also one of the first well-known small theropods discovered, which attracted international scientific interest at the time. Unfortunately, the only known specimen was destroyed by a fire, so it has become fairly obscure over time. All that will probably ever be known about the dinosaur is summarised here, so hopefully it can bring some attention to its historical importance. Some articles about it were published in Danish, which luckily is my native language, others in German, where I am grateful for help in translation by Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Esculenta[edit]

This article is well developed and reads smoothly. Here are some suggestions for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough look-through, I'll address these issues within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, now most issues are solved, and I have added some comments to those remaining. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes, and am happy to support this candidacy for promotion. Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the article looks better for it! FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Perhaps genus should be linked in the first sentence, as this is what the article is about.
Done, strange it wasn't already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”of the earliest known dinosaurs” hyphen
Removed the entire sentence, it was a leftover from before I worked on the article, and I couldn't really find support for the exact claim in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States shouldn’t be linked (per MOS:OVERLINK)
Removed with the above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intensifier “very” is noticeably used several times in the second paragraph; consider eliminating some or using a different intensifier
Removed two. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider the following links for the lead: humerus, femur, affinities, family, holotype, Early Jurassic, cervical, dorsal, caudal (with the last 3, consider glossing with parentheticals like is done later in the “Discovery” section)
Done (Early Jurassic was already linked in the first paragraph). FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and a natural cast specimen was assigned to it” what is a “natural cast”? Is this different than a “cast replica” referred to later?
Yeah, this could be confusing (natural vs man-made casts), but the distinction is explained in more detail under classification. Perhaps you had not gotten to that part yet when you wondered about it? Or would you want more explanation in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is the family Coelophysidae not shown in the taxobox?
It is only widely thought to be a Coelophysoid, a level above family. It is likely a Coelophysid, but we will probably never know for sure due to the lack of material (this is discussed in detail in the last part of the classifications section). FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”but is currently believed to date” is “currently” necessary?
There is a fair chance it will change again because the dating has been so unstable historically (as is explained in the paleoenvironment and classification sections), so I thought "now" or "currently" would be good to underline that it may not be written in stone... But I can remove it if it is very jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

  • ”She asked the owner of the land for permission to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology, which was granted.” clause at the end seems awkward; may I suggest “She was granted permission by the land owner to collect the specimen for Mount Holyoke College (an all-women's college a few miles from there), where she was in charge of the department of geology.”
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • links: scapula, coracoid
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • scapula, coracoid, and astragalus are not helpfully glossed like the other anatomical terms are (I see this is done two paragraphs later; maybe swap places?)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the generic name derived from Greek or Ancient Greek]? Should the Greek text be wrapped with the template {{lang-grc}}? (See wp:GREEK)
It is almost certainly ancient Greek, but none of the sources specify this. Perhaps we have someone who can identify it by the text (ποδώκης σαύρα)? Perhaps Cplakidas? But yeah, I'll add that template. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to all, while σαύρα is still used in modern Greek, ποδώκης is definitely ancient Greek. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's sufficient to label it as such. Also added the template. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The American paleontologist Robert T. Bakker stated in 2014 that while old professors grumbled that females were unfit for working with fossils during his time at university, Talbot's discovery of Podokesaurus was a counterargument to that.” Perhaps this tidbit would be better placed in the article about Talbot, as it seems quite peripheral to the article topic?
I see what you're getting at, but I think it also helps establish the significance of Podokesaurus itself; it is the importance of the specimen that was part of making Talbot well-known, and the discovery itself which countered the old professors. If it had just been an unimportant fossil, it wouldn't have changed any opinions. Bakker's text is also more in appreciation of the dinosaur itself, he says the model of it at Yale made him determine to apply there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”…specified that it was from the Longmeadow Sandstone.[6][2][11][7]” ensure that multi-citations like this one have the cites in correct numerical order (check throughout)
I don't think that's a requirement here, though. Haven't seen it in the WP:MOS. And if I was to move some text around, the order would be messed up again anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know (that it's not in the MOS). I've seen it requested at other FACs. Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Apart from a tooth…” any link to an article about the species to which this tooth belongs?
Interesting suggestion, I found one 1976 source saying Coelophysis, but today that would probably be considered too specific for just a tooth, so I have given it the cautious wording "assigned to Coelophysis in 1976". FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • seems inconsistent to present Lull’s estimated morphometrics in mm, while Von Huene’s is in cm
Now mm, used cm before because that's how von Huene gave them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Talbot stated… while Paul stated…” switch up verbs to avoid same-sentence repetition
Said "Paul thought" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”As a coelophysoid, it would likely have been similar in build to for example Coelophysis” is the struck part necessary?
There are other coelophysoids as well, the source doesn't only mention Coelophysis. Problem is, it says "likely that this theropod was built much like Coelophysis or Dilophosaurus", but the latter is not currently thought to be a coelophysoid. But the gist of it is that it is compared to more than one coelophysoid. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • styliform - unfamiliar word
Added "(resembling a pen or bristle in shape)". FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • check article throughout for use of “which” (some need a preceding comma or should be replaced with “that”)
I've shaken it up a bit, hope it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”… long and 2 mm (0.079 in) wide.” -> long and 2 mm (0.1 in) wide.” (so that sig. fig. output matches input)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link processus lateralis, condyle
Linked and glossed condyle. No link for the former, but glossed it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification + the rest

  • ”forward directed pubis “, “smallest known Coelophysis specimens” , “latest surviving coelophysoids” need hyphenation
Added (if it is in the ways you meant). FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In the same volume, the paleontologist David B. Norman agreed …” I don’t think the first bit is important
It was more to avoid just repeating the year again. Or would that be preferable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • favour -> favor (article is Am. Eng., I assume)
Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that you always use the definite article “the” with a noun phrase before a person’s name (e.g. “the writer Jan Peczkis”; “The paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn”, etc.). This read a bit odd to me, so I researched grammar rules to see if this was common. My understanding is that both ways are correct (i.e., with or without “the”); perhaps consider switching up its inclusion for a bit for more variety.
Heh, every other FAC, someone tells me to either add it or remove it. In any case, I think it'd be best to keep it consistent within an article. Since it's so subjective, I'd prefer to keep it as is, since it's impossible to keep everyone happy anyway, and it's be tedious to remove. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta: Drive by comment - false title. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful link – thanks! Esculenta (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
Removed ", U.K." from one, if that's what was meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: is this an authorized republication?
What I used is just an online version of the text, I can't find any indication it was ever republished. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This online version appears to be hosted by someone who is neither the original author nor the cited publisher - do they have the right to publish it online? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the book is about Mount Holyoke College, and it's hosted by that college's official website, so I'd assume they have some claim to it? I can remove it if necessary, but it seems there is a close affiliation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this cannot be verified I would suggest removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link. I will try to email the college and see what they say. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 seems a bit of an odd source to be used in this type of article - can you explain?
Well, it's a book about Mount Holyoke and its environs, which is where the only fossil of this dinosaur is found, and it is therefore discussed in that source as a significant part of the history. The writer (Christopher Benfey) is a teacher at Mount Holyoke college, where the specimen was first studied. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that author is credited primarily as a literary critic? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His article here also says he is a scholar. A Google scholar search[2] indicates he has published various history-related books and articles, which is relevant here, since the source covers the history of the college and the fossil as an object, rather than palaeontological aspects of it. He is only cited for statements relating to the fossil's history at the college, which he appears to be a historian of (having published several books about the history of Mt. Holyoke College). FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 has an unmatched parenthesis - is this a typo or is there something missing?
Removed, not sure how that happened. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: |publisher= is sufficient, we don't also need website
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17: pages?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: what kind of source is this?
It is a sort of museum journal or bulletin, the source pdf says "Postilla includes results of original research on systematic, evolutionary, morphological, and ecological biology, including paleontology. Syntheses and other theoretical papers based on research are also welcomed. Postilla is intended primarily for papers by the staff of the Peabody Museum or on research using material in this Museum." Added a comma after "postilla", as some citations do it, but it is admittedly an odd format. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: formatting doesn't match other sources
It is a book published by a journal (Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin), so I was unsure how to format it, as a journal article or a book? I tried now with using the journal instead of publisher field, if that suffices. I removed the location field accordingly, not sure if that's the best solution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I was told theses could be cited for uncontroversial info as long as it is made clear in-text it is only a thesis. Changed format to "cite thesis". FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that provision at WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this would seem to support such a citation? "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Also, since we have Template:Cite thesis[3], I'd assume it is because such citations have been anticipated. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the author, Tykoski, is already cited earlier in the article for a peer-reviewed paper, and the same info of his thesis is supported by many of the other citations, so there is nothing controversial about the short sentence cited to his thesis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how edition statements are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now only give numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusal from coordinator duties in order to review. I did a little copy editing on this, but let's see what else I can find to pick at.

  • "but was lost when the science hall it was kept in burned down". Optional: "science hall" → 'building'.
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "1 kg (2 lb) in weight"; Body: two options offered with no indications as to which is "superior". Why has one been picked out for the lead?
I took that because it's newer, but I see your point, so i gave the full range. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lull drew a reconstruction of the skeleton with missing parts". Read literally this implies the opposite of what I think you mean.
Not entirely sure what you mean, but I reworded to make it clearer: "basing the parts missing from the fossil on the equivalents in Compsognathus". FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lull had sent his manuscript to the Danish ornithologist Gerhard Heilmann for criticism prior to publication, which Heilmann published in a 1913 article wherein he included previously unpublished photos of the fossil received from Talbot, as well as his own restorations." Suggest breaking the sentence after "publication". Maybe "wherein" → 'in which'?
Took your suggestions and started the new second sentence with "Heilmann published his response in a 1913 article". FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the peculiar distinction of being the dinosaur that vanished twice in history". "history" has a specific meaning; Benfey doesn't use the word and the article shouldn't either.
It was just to paraphrase the geological times mentioned (which technically is history), "once in the Triassic period etc.", but I removed the word. I think it's valid paraphrasis, though, but probably not necessary, the point comes across anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your habit of not narrowing down cites further than the whole journal article drives me crazy. What page(s) in Peczkis support the 10-40 kg estimate?
It's because I often use the automatic doi to citation thing, where it just gives the page range. But since this paper doesn't really discuss the estimate, I can narrow it down further (as I just did), otherwise, it should be easy to find by searching the name in the pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not a pdf, it's a JSTOR article, which if it has a search facility I haven't found. I ended up reading the whole (tedious) article and still not seeing it. Why do you give "p. 530-531" when all of the information required to back the cite is on p. 531?
Well, I also explain how the measurement was done "through pelvic height determination", which is not stated on the page where the actual measurement is found, but a caption to that table on the previous page refers to a method discussed earlier in the article, so I think we need that too to support the entire sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "merely confirmed that they were dinosaurs rather than establish a specific relation between them" Should that be 'established'?
Hmmm, when I read it, the current wording seems to make more sense... Also if I reverse the verbs: "merely established that they were dinosaurs rather than confirm a specific relation"... But can't really argue for the grammar laws behind it... Perhaps we could ask for further opinions? FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you reversed it I would still be querying. Surely either both confirm and establish need "ed" adding or neither do? And not sure why we might need other opinions when you "can't really argue for the grammar laws behind it".
Ok, I went with "merely confirm that they were dinosaurs rather than establish", sounds better to me than "merely confirmed that they were dinosaurs rather than established". FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15–20 km/h (9.3–12.4 mph)"> IMO the mph figures are spuriously accurate.
You mean the converted numbers, or the first numbers? Because that's the name of the game, it's all just educated guesswork... I added "about", to make it clearer it is just an estimated range. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The converted figures. I understand that it is educated guesswork, which is my point. '9-12 mph' is the rough and ready conversion; "9.3-12.4 mph" specifies a degree of accuracy which isn't the case.
I tried a parameter that rounds up to "(9–12 mph)", is that ok? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He cautioned that comparison was difficult because dinosaur anatomy differed significantly from that of mammals and birds, including in their massive tails, and hindlimb retractor muscles that originated behind the femur, while these muscles originate more forward in mammals and extant birds." I find this sentence confusing/convoluted.
I split it in two, does it look better? "He cautioned that comparison was difficult because dinosaur anatomy differed significantly from that of mammals and birds. Differences included the massive tails of dinosaurs, and hindlimb retractor muscles that originated behind the femur, while these muscles originate more forward in mammals and extant birds." FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have. I said when I copy edited that this was good work even by your usual high standards, and I can only repeat that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for looking over this article, all should now be answered above, though with some uncertainties left. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses to response above. Otherwise all good. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And a few more answers... FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Four weeks in and only two supports. You could do with calling in a favour or two if the coordinators are not to get twitchy. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to ping some of the editors who currently have biology FACs, Tylototriton, Dunkleosteus77, LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • "and most researchers consider the lost holotype the only representative of the genus" you already said this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's the common name for it. I tried with "(the pubic bone of the pelvis)", how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say "the pubic bone (of the pelvis)" or "the pubis (the lower pelvis)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lower pelvis" is very imprecise and not really correct when it comes to dinosaurs, I think the current wording does the job best so far. But I wonder what Jens Lallensack has to say, probably being one of the only trained animal anatomists around? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that "pubis (pubic bone)" is a bit pointless. The question is if it needs to be glossed in the first place (it is easy to just follow the link). It is not explained in the lead, btw, although accessibility is even more important there. The lead links to the article pubis (bone), while the body links to the glossary (but actually I like it this way; the main article is a quicker way to understand the term). Regarding your question, what about combining two explanations: "the pubis and ischium (bones forming the lower front and lower back of the pelvis, respectively)" or simply "the pubis and ischium (bones of the pelvis)"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took your longer suggestion, just to make it fool-proof... And added some more glossing to the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but is that a rule? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who uses inches and feet, 4 ft is a lot easier to visualize than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "speed" is imprecise, it can be slow or fast, it doesn't have a value in itself. Or do you mean instead of locomotion? Then I think the current wording is more adequate for a biology article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did it have gastroliths if it was carnivorous? Are there any more recent discussions on diet or is it assumed to be carnivorous solely because of the shape of its pelvis?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example Baryonyx was also found with a possible gastrolith. But there is no follow up in the literature on why Podokesaurus would have had it, or if the identification was correct. This paper[4] seems to indicate that low numbers of gastroliths found in Baryonyx and Allosaurus may have been accidental ingestion... But I can't really use that here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tylototriton[edit]

Support. With the reservation that I am not very knowledgeable in paleontology, this is a very comprehensive and interesting article.

  • All images are in the public domain or have other free licences.
  • References all look reliable, include primary and secondary sources
  • Minor suggestion: some sections are a bit long, perhaps subsections would improve the structure?

Tylototriton (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, layman reviews are certainly useful, and since you're knowledgable about zoology, it doesn't come from nowhere. I found it hard to find places where it made sense to section text further, but I added a "postcranial skeleton" section under description, if that helps. But with the longer discovery and classification sections, it's hard to figure out how to name them, and how the included info can be described collectively... FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another coord note[edit]

@Dunkleosteus77 and Nikkimaria: have your concerns been resolved? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: sorry to be a pest... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 January 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/Podokesaurus/archive1&oldid=997735535"