Talk:Carnotaurus/Archive 1

Image

The side on image of the Carnotaurus must have its lower legs and ankles really stretched; they can't be that long and that thin. It needs to be removed or fixed up. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite? I can't find proper skeletals, but from what I've seen the proportions look about right and they wold look rather thin in profile. Dinosaurs generally don't have much meat on their lower legs, it's all bone and tendon. Just look at a chicken. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a cite but compare them to the pictures of the other Albisaurids and you will see what I mean. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can even compare it to the other pictures on the page. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Without a source, how can you tell which pictures are correct and which aren't? And you can't necessarily go by other abelisaurids. They're not Carnotaurus. Without a source or skeletal I'm hesitant to remove this, as it looks within range of what's known. It does look a little odd to me, probably because of how straight the ankle is. I'm not sure if that was possible or not. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Pauls Carnotorus [1] They compare very well proportionally. If we asume pauls is 100% correct then the one in the articale would need a longer tail. As for the legs they are probably just a bit straight, all they need is hacking up and reposing. I would hate to see that image go. I'll try and fix it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the proportions seem right, but I also noticed the thing with the leg, the metatarsals seem to be turned back to the maximum before actually turning backwards, but well, I don't know about the biomechanics down there... But take a look at these images, Bogdanov might have used an image of a skeleton posed like one of these as reference, the leg seems to be in the same position:[2][3]Funkynusayri (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, anyone know if all those Todd Marshall drawings Benosaurus has uploaded have correct copyright information? It seems dubious to me, and there are no sources... Funkynusayri (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd check up on that--IIRC he got permission to use them but I'm not sure if the right procedures were followed, or if Marshall was aware of the free commercial use requirement. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Dinoguy2. I just assumed that was the incorrect one because it differed form the others. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• On images, I have long thought our taxobox photo was pretty inadequate; it is foreshortened, only shows one horn, has a very busy background, and shows a huge gap between the coracoids. Sadly, it seems to be better than anything else available on Commons:[4] I found two other contenders on Flickr, though. This photo[5] from the Los Angeles Museum shows the front part of the skeleton well, but leaves out most of the legs and tail, but these parts aren't known anyway. Then there is this photo[6] of the same mount, which shows more of the skeleton, but also has a busier background (much of it could be cropped). Any thoughts, Jens Lallensack (who brought the article to FA)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try to upload what I have later! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current ones to those flickr photos, the current one has a busy background but it's mostly white so the mount pops against it clearly. It shows the body is relative clarity. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Jens appears to have some better photos. But in any case, the current photo has very incorrect coracoid placement, which we should avoid when possible. Also, the body is so foreshortened that the anatomy is barely visible anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I now uploaded those I have ([7]), please have a look if it includes anything useful. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This one[8] maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

chameleon?

Is it possible? Please think about the 3rd trap on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.--210.153.95.1 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's possible, but is so far unsupported by fossil evidence, and thus should remain listed as a fictional characteristic. Just like the similar case with Jurassic Park's poison-spitting Dilophosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's possible but highly unlikely as Carnotaurus displays no features indicative of an ambush predator. Also Chameleon's don't use their color changing abilities for camoflauge, its actually to communicate how they are feeling. And inferring from modern birds, Dinosaurs probably had many other ways to communicate that were more efficient.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hands

Why the hell are it's hands facing palms-out?

The abelisaurids may have been an exception to this rule. Their arms were so laughably short and nearly unable to move at all that such a position wouldn't be as big of a deal for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Skull anatomy and behaviors

This helps and therefore should be cited http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/039.029.0313 Brisio (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it going by the Type Specimens length?

The Type Specimen is only a Juvenile, an adult Carnotaurus could grow to be 33-35 feet long. my source is this http://www.rareresource.com/carnotaurus.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We go by actual specimens, not speculation. In this case, only one specimen has been described, so that's all there is to go on. J. Spencer (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article?

with Jens' recent additions and Funk's addition of the illustrations, this article may be close to GA status. It just needs a few cites in Paleoecology. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Be good to get some concerted work happening on some of these again.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Would be very cool. It already was a very accurate and well sourced article, so it's fun to build on it. We would need more about classification and discovery, though. I plan to do that. I was also able to find a few good sources about cultural depiction. If you don't mind, I will try a "in popular culture" section next week (when I have my books back). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to the additions. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

flapped

Ok, "flapped" is not the best word. But what to write instead?

Here is the sentence in question: Also, the anterior part of the lower jaw would have been able to flap up- and downwards. When flapped downwards, the teeth would have projected forwards, allowing to spike small prey items; when flapped upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey animal from escaping.

The paper actually says: Moreover, the rotatory movements of the upper and lower jaws change the orientation of the tooth tips with respect to the prey. Possibly, when the jaws struck the food, the teeth were projected forward to impale the prey, and as the muzzle was rotated downward and at the same time the anterior portion of the mandible was rotated upward, the tooth tips were turned caudally to restrict escape movements of the prey. (Mazzetta et al. 1998).

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to think of a better word, here. In English, 'flapping the jaw' is informal speech for 'talking too much', so the term should be avoided. I'll come up with something, if one of our intrepid fellow editors hasn't already found a fix. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So it's more like "teeth curl backwards and inwards as the jaw opens widely"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, the sentence, "The hyposphene-hypantrum articulations between the dorsal vertebrae are well developed, reducing lateral mobility of the dorsal vertebral column." seems too technical for a general audience. Cas, any suggestions here? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. I've reworked some of the phrasing a bit. I note you've removed the overly-technical sentence. I wonder if the remaining portions needing citations couldn't be sourced to The Dinosauria 2nd; it wouldn't be difficult for me to check. I realize you don't have your books and that the popular culture section will need to wait a week, but the article has otherwise really shaped up nicely. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfect now :-) The difficult part in the paleoecology section that has to be sourced would be the part about plants. I have found this, thats about the fossil fruits; perhaps there is something about the remaining vegetation in there. And I still haven't done the additions to the classification section … Unfortunately, I will not have time the next three days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Paleoecology section is ready now. If somebody need access to sources cited in the article, just let me know, that is absolutely no problem. Thanks to all for your great work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've barely started the new Massospondylus papers... I can't keep up! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

what next?

I'm through now with the additions. Do you have any suggestions how to improve it further? I think we may should leave out the popular culture section … I've just added some bits of that stuff to the discovery section, and I do not have much more. By the way, happy new year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year to you as well! I'm surprised you are editing instead of doing Molybdomancy.

The article looks to be in great shape, but the WP:LEDE of the article is probably still too short; it should summarize the rest of the article. Also, someone with fresh eyes should look for issues of overly jargonistic phrases. Other than these concerns, I think it would make a great Good Article. Thanks for all your work... in a language you're not even all that familiar with! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking longer intro, which summarises more of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be a problem, but you put citations at the end of a sentence most places, but in the following, you put them within: "The use of these horns is not entirely clear; most interpretations have revolved around use in fighting conspecifics,[11][44][7][43][O] though a use in display[43] or in killing prey[7] also has been suggested." Sometimes, reviewers ask for consistency in citations. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it; that's exactly how I cite when the source only verifies that part of the phrase. For example, if source 44 only talks about fighting conspecifics, it's actually a mistake to reference at the end of the sentence. This is pretty standard, on en.wp IMO. Or it should be. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to expand the lede. Would be great if someone could look for readability issues such as jargonistic phrases! Please feel free to remove information to gain a better readability when necessary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made the following changes to the article. Please revert as needed. I'm at a loss of what to do with "low-motion shuffling with the skull's upper sides" (I don't really know what is meant there), "high fresh water input through the rivers." (doesn't this just mean flooding?) and "The paleoflora was known for its aquatic components, Paleoazolla and Regnellidium.[42] However, recent paleobotanical discoveries have revealed the presence of a more diverse range of plants associated with these water bodies, including pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and various angiosperms." (the mention of aquatic plants, or rather, only discussion of aquatic flora, seems discordant with the discussion of a land-based predator). Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Firs: Thank you for all these corrections and very helpful comments. I hope its more understandable now. I've removed the water plants and the overly geology-technical sentence with the water input (it dosn't necessarily mean flooding), it dosn't really matters in this article. @Funk: Thanks for making this picture useful by fixing the ultralarge eyes, good work :-) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I think the eye is still a bit too large, actually. And I even had to remove claws from all the fingers, I don't understand how a scientific paper can have such obvious errors in their illustrations! FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else left to nitpick. Considering the corresponding de:Carnotaurus article is already an Excellent article, I don't think there's any barrier to GA. Who wants to submit it? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have submitted it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's a new paper coming out on Carnotaurus, the accepted manuscript is available here: http://app.pan.pl/article/item/app20110129.html FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's already implemented! That's fast. And by the way, now Acta Polonica uses a free CC license too, so we can use all their images and text. Pretty crazy, anyone know when this happened? FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That is really good news! Must had happened in 2012. Are only the newer articles that contain the CC-license note are free? We may can not use the skull-and-neck-reconstruction image published in the new Carnotaurus paper, because the skull images are just taken from other, non-free papers, or am I mistaken? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a general copyright note on their site.[9] But I doubt it works retroactively, I have sent them a mail about this... I think all future papers would be free. As for "borrowed" images from other papers, the manuscript versions don't seem to have proper image descriptions, so it's hard to say... FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I already got an answer: "Thanks for your inquiry. Free CC licence was officially implemented by our journal relatively recently (2012). Nonetheless, basically the same practical use of copyrighted material published in APP worked for long time, allowing people to use, distribute, and reproduce materials published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica provided the original author and source are credited. It it the Institute of Paleobiology who held the copyrights and since we transformed this into open CC licence my guess is that there should be no problem to use also archival issues (available online for free) using the same CC licence.

I am cc: this message to the Director of the Institute of Paleobiology (publisher of the journal) just to let him comment if my explanation needs additional clarification." FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll just place this new free paper on ceratosaur palaeobiology here[10], so that we don't forget it, it has stuff that would be relevant for both this and the Ceratosaurus FA. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture

User:Pteranadons kindly contributed a new popular culture section. I have some information about the quite accurate Carnotaurus reconstruction in the motion picture film Dinosaur Valley girls that could be added to that section. But it would still be a incomplete list of popular depictions; imho we can not list some depictions while being silent about all the others. Any ideas? Would it be better to remove that section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

J. Spencer removed the section entirely, which I'm ok with, but it seems to me that this is one of those few dinosaurs that could have a worthwhile pop culture section: there's sourceable commentary on the Disney depictions (both the film and the attraction); if you have sourceable commentary about other depictions, we could actually have a robust pop culture section which, ideally, would educate readers or say something about how the genus has been depicted in the media. I've removed the source to Metacritic, which did not verify the content it was supposed to source (no mention of Carnotaurus on that page). Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I have an article about this dinosaur valley girls stop-motion film, discussing how the Carnotaurus model was made, but it is nothing really special in there … I also wasn't able to find a source for the Chameleon-Carnotaurus in Crichtons "The Lost World" novel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carnotaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Status: Result = PASS

Starting review... initial impression is it doesn't look too bad at all. This is my first ever time doing a GA review so I will be asking for help from an experienced GA reviewer to check my work. Zad68 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all these useful comments :) If you have suggestions for further improvement, please let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking good... preparing to go through sources next. Zad68 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did a bunch more tonight, see above. I'm puzzled about how the refs are done, can you look at my questions.... Zad68 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Finished looking at the sources and generally they look very, very good, except for a few format problems and some WP:SPS issues that need to be fixed. I have now finished reviewing all the WP:GA requirements and will be waiting on your updates. The issues identified are important for WP:GA but should be fixable. I'll "officially" put the review in on-hold status. Great work, not much further to go, and I can definitely see this article heading for FA in the not too distant future. Zad68 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, thank you! I only have answered a few of your comments; I hope I will have time tomorrow to work of your points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated, and I moved the items not required for GA into a new section below. Just one small WP:OR thing to look at, and some WP: WORDS and some prose clarity items to fix. Looking forward to accepting this as GA soon. Zad68 ...although I hasten to remind you (and myself) that once I am ready to accept it, I'm going to be asking an experienced GA reviewer to check my work, so that may add a bit of time before the actual pass. Zad68 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates reviewed, one "however" to consider removing and then we're done. Zad68 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ...now addressed, I think it's GA, listing for a second opinion. Zad68 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sasata (talk · contribs) double-checked my work, we're done! Kudos to you, hope to see many more GA nominations from you... Zad68 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GA table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is where most of the work is needed. General issues with maintaining consistent tense, WP:NUMERAL, some WP:LABEL issues with 'controversy', a few spelling issues, WP:PEACOCK ('notably') problems to be cleaned up... a few clarity and grammar issues remain, context changes need fixing for clarity One last "however" to consider removing for clarity Y all addressed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	a few WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:REALTIME and WP:ALLEGED issues need fixing as described in notes below Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	some technical problems with the reference tags Y issue still exists but moved to post-GA suggestions
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	at least one blog used as reference, avoid using 'taxonsearch.org' and other WP:SPS problems Y all the sources were reviewed, questioned sources were demonstrated to meet WP:RS, I did a few spot-checks of article content against the sources that I could access on-line to ensure the sources were represented accurately and without plagiarism, the one question I had about not being able to find a certain stat in a source was answered adequately, I also ran Coren's-now-MadMan's copyright search bot against the article and it came up clean.
	2c. it contains no original research.	small WP:OR issue found to resolve Y
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Parts of the Age and paleoecology section might be off-topic Y fixed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Possible WP:UNDUE issue identified Y demonstrated not to be a problem
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A little cleanup needed with image captions Y OK now but could be better
	7. Overall assessment.	Waiting for second opinion of this review; experienced GA reviewer Sasata (talk · contribs) double-checked this review and said it was fine

Notes

MOS compliance

• There is some duplicate Wikilinking in the body, esp. with the genus names, also femur.

 Done

• Treat Wikilinking in the lead separately from the body. For example, theropod is WL'd in the lead but not the body, it should be in both places. Also abelisaurid

 Done

• Technical words that could use Wikilinking or a more common term: conspecifics, functionless, plesiosaur, rugose

 Done, except for "functionless"; I was not able to find another word that is as precise.

General

• Apparently, the "theropod" nature of this beast is so fundamental to understanding it that word appears over a dozen times in the article, four times in the lead alone. Remember that your readers aren't necessarily paleontologists (I'm certainly not). I'd like to see some explanation of what a theropod is in-article before the rest of the content is built on it. Yes WLs are helpful but for a concept so fundamental to the understanding of the content I'd like to see like one or two sentences in-article explaining it.

I'm not sure about this one. In featured theropod articles, this term is never explained. Theropoda is just a clade; linking it should be enough.

Y you convinced me

• "adaption"... is "adaptation" meant?

 Done

• Is the spelling of "palaeontologist", "rivalling", "reinvestigate" correct for this article's WP:ENGVAR?

 Done, but I do not know what to make with "reinvestigate"? Y

• Verb tense--the article shifts between present and past tense frequently; be consistent.

 Done (I hope I got everything)

• "Notable/notably" appears too often. If it's in an encyclopedia article I expect it to be notable, and when some things are described as "notable" that makes the other things sound like they're non-notable, so why are they in the article? (Same with "unusually".) Just remove these words.

 Done

• I like the in-line parenthetical explainers where used: hadrosaurid ("duck-billed"), dentary (the foremost jaw bone)--they make the article more accessible to non-specialists.

Y

• "Controversial"--the feeding habits and the relationships within the Abelisauridae are described as "controversial" but the controversy isn't explained. If a strong, emotive word like controversial is used, it needs to be explained. Describe the "sides" of the controversy and what prevents the controversy from being resolved. Then, remove the word "controversy."

 Done

Y and nicely done, too

• "However" is used seven times. Can some uses be avoided or reworded, especially in the last paragraph of Classification?

 Done

• Important one--On rereading this, I am getting confused in changes of context from describing the animal in general to describing the one specific skeleton found. The subsections in Description move between description of the animal in general and describing the one skeleton. For example, the Vertebrae section feels like it's talking about the animal in general, but the last sentence in skull is clearly talking about the one skeleton, "The curvature seen in the upper jaw is stronger than that seen in the lower jaw, a result of postmortem crushing of the skull." I expect to be reading about the animal in general.

 Done, I understand that this could be confusing; I removed that information, it is not as important.

Y This issue is addressed sufficiently

Lead

• Should "Period" in Late Cretaceous Period be capitalized?

I think so, but I'm not sure

 Done I looked at the FA dino article you linked to, it didn't capitalize it, so I just made it lowercase...

• "measuring 8 to 9 meters in length and weighing one or two metric tons"--follow WP:NUMERAL consistently; should it be "one to two" instead of "one or two"? Also in general, follow WP:NUMERAL for fraction names.

 Done

• "Carnotaurus was a lightly built"..."it is characterized by"--maintain consistent tense

 Done

• "Its feeding habits remain controversial;"--you probably mean to end this with a colon and not a semicolon; surely the feeding habits are not what is controversial, but rather there is debate among palentologists regarding its feeding habits?

 Done

• "...although some studies suggested"--again a verb tense change (sentence started in present tense), is the debate still active or not?

The studies are already published, some in 1998, some in 2009 (-> past); but the debate is still active (-> present). What to do?

Y fine now

• "was possibly one of the fastest large theropods known."--consider removing 'known'

 Done

Description

• "The only known specimen was"--was? does the specimen not exist any more? This paragraph has the word 'known' four times, eliminate most of them.

 Done

• What is meant by "in life"? It's repeated several times. Probably not necessary.

It is used to describe features that are not visible on the fossils, but occured when "the animal was alive". I don't want to remove it for clarity.

Y I see featured article Edmontosaurus uses this "in life" construction, it must be a paleontology idiom, so OK.

• "Carnotaurus differs from all other abelisaurids in having proportionally shorter and more robust forelimbs, and in the fourth splint-like metacarpal being the longest bone in the hand."--the end of this sentence is clumsy (I'm stumbling over "being"), try "Carnotaurus differs from all other abelisaurids in having proportionally shorter and more robust forelimbs, and in having the fourth, splint-like metacarpal as the longest bone in the hand." Is "hand" the right word? Should it be claw?

 Done (and no, claws were absent)

• Remove "unfortunately"--that's disallowed editorializing in article content.

 Done

• Doing some fact checking: "The only known individual was about 8 to 9 meters in length, making Carnotaurus one of the largest abelisaurids." is sourced to Bonaparte 1990 pg. 38, I'm looking on that page and can't find it talking about size, am I missing something?

There is a skeletal reconstruction on that page with a scale bar. In the second paper cited, they say "8 to 9 meters" without discussion, only specifying "Bonaparte 1990" as the source of information. Thus, the first source had published the information, and the second source had interpreted it.

Y OK

Classification

• "Carnotaurus is constantly shown to be one of the most derived members" -- Do you mean "consistently shown"? What does "most derived" mean? To me, something is either derived or it isn't, "most derived" sounds funny, can you explain this better?

"most derived" is frequently used in biological sources. I have no idea how to explain it better. I don't want to write "more advanced", because the reader may think that Carnotaurus was "better" than other abelisaurids. I have linked the term derived now.

Y Although I still don't love it, FA Allosaurus has constructions like: "The rib cage was broad, giving it a barrel chest, especially in comparison to less derived theropods like Ceratosaurus." Although, Herrerasaurus does it this way, "Derived and basal characteristics: Herrerasaurus is something of an enigma in that it displays traits that are found in different groups of dinosaurs, and several traits found in non-dinosaurian archosaurs." but the current content is fine.

• "However, a recent review suggests that Abelisaurus was a derived abelisaurid instead." -- 'However' should not be used to start a sentence, can you just drop it? Also, time-relative wording like "recent" needs to be removed, can you just put the year of the review in?

Whats wrong with starting a sentence with "However"? It is frequently used in featured articles, in the FA Evolution, there are 18 sentences starting with this word. I was not able to find an alternative; I need this word to establish a relation between the sentences.

I guess Wikipedia says it's OK to start a sentence with "however", but the article is using "however" in a few cases where probably "additionally" is meant. This is a clarity issue, as "however" indicates an opposing or limiting idea is about to be presented, but actaully an additional, separate or complementary idea is presented. Consider replacing "however" with "additionally", or removing "however" altogether, for this one sentence to wrap this up:

"When pressed downwards, the teeth would have projected forward, allowing Carnotaurus to spike small prey items; when the teeth were curved upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey animal from escaping.[6] However, Mazzetta and colleagues also found that the skull was able to withstand forces that appear when tugging on large prey items."

 Done

Discovery

• "successful"--it's puffery/editorializing, remove it

 Done

• "Unusually, it preserves extensive skin impressions." -- I'm confused by this... what is doing the preserving of the skin impressions?

 Done

• "Only recently have similar well-preserved abelisaurids..." -- need to remove 'recently' as a time-relative word

 Done

Locomotion

• "The ability of an animal's leg to withstand those forces limit"--probably should use "limits"

 Done

Age and paleoecology

• "announed"--probably 'announced' is meant

 Done

• Actually might this whole section might be off-topic?

No. This section is standard in featured dinosaur articles (e.g., Herrerasaurus, Edmontosaurus). In paleontology, it is important to consider the environment the animal lived in.

Y OK

Paleobiology

• "The use of these horns is not entirely clear; most interpretations have revolved around use in fighting conspecifics,[11][43][6][42][O] though a use in display[42] or in killing prey[6] also has been suggested." -- this looks like a little bit of original research, who has determined "most"? It looks like from the citation count that it's the author of the article that has determined "most". Consider using "several".

 Done

• "today's" sounds like a time-relative term here, consider "modern"

 Done

• "although by far not as good as those of an ostrich" -- consider "although not nearly as good as those of an ostrich"

 Done

• "This so-called caudofemoralis muscle" -- "so-called" makes it sound like you are doubting the truth of something, is that what is meant?

 Done

• There's a large paragraph starting "This interpretation was questioned by François Therrien...", sourced to a single pay-for-publish journal article. Is this WP:UNDUE weight? What makes us think this one journal article's theories are so important as to deserve a whole paragraph of space? Look at the amount of weight given to this one article, as compared to the previous paragraph which covers the theories published in three different articles in what appear to be much more selective or reputable journals. Can you find a secondary source that covers this debate to help determine due weight to each theory?

I don't see a problem here. We have three paragraphs, each discussing the results of a separate group of rechearchers. In the first paragraph, two articles from the same researchers are cited; the third is not an article but only an abstract. Just because these researchers have released two articles supplementing each other, it does not mean that the opinion of these researchers is more important than that of others. The Therrien article is not from a journal, but from a book; you can not compare this.

Y OK

In popular culture

• I hate "In popular culture" sections but, sadly, the world doesn't revolve around me!  :)

Y

Images and other media

• Nice selection of images! Captions needs fixing per WP:CAPTION though, some need to be more informative (one is just "Restoration")

Is it ok now?

Y They're acceptable but not terrific... read WP:CAP

Reference section

• Y section exists and uses WP:MOS-compliant style
• Bakker 1998 URL is a dead link

 Done

• Mazzetta 1998 URL is a dead link

 Done

• Is there any reason why the direct link to the Bonaparte article can't be included

 Done

• I've never seen this before: {{#tag:ref|... I understand named refs and tag groups, but I have not seen something that looks like a prefix "#tag" in front of a template name before.

I don't like any of Wikipedias methods for citing sources. I have used this method because it was used in the most recently featured dinosaur article (Plateosaurus).

Y referencing is there even if it isn't how I would have done it

Sourcing

• Source Hartman 2012 is a blogspot blog and not a WP:RS. This must be remedied. In each of the 3 times it is used in the article, it is used alongside another source. Is Hartman 2012 really needed?

From Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published sources: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Scott Hartman is actually a dinosaur paleontologist and an expert on anatomy. Similar blogs written by experts on the field are cited in Plateosaurus, which is a featured article since 2012.

Y You're right, FA dino articles do use these sorts of sources. Well this was interesting to learn! If I tried to do something similar in a medical article, it would get shot down faster than you can blink. I reviewed the Plateosaurus FA review, and some very well-respected FA reviewers, including some specialists in the life sciences, reviewed and OK'd these kinds of sources. I also reviewed the WP:DINO sourcing standards, and apparently primary sources are preferred... just goes to show that I'll have to make sure to review each WikiProject's sourcing standards before doing GA reviews for articles in the various project areas.

• taxonsearch appears to be a self-published website and therefore a WP:SPS problem, can you redo the refs to refer only to the underlying work?

Taxonsearch is a scientific database run by famous paleontologist Paul Sereno, and indeed is a very good source. (See also: Sereno, P. C., McAllister, S., and Brusatte, S. L. 2005. TaxonSearch: a relational database for suprageneric taxa and phylogenetic definitions. PhyloInformatics 8:1-21.)

Y as above

• Look at the Kielan−Jaworowska ref, there's some funny characters in there including a question mark

everything is right; the question mark means that the authors are not sure if its really a cimolodonta, such question marks are commonly used in paleontology.

Y so this is another paleo quirk I'll have to remember

• "AllEars.net" is WP:SPS and not a reliable source... consider just removing that whole sentence.

I'm not sure if this is self publishing or not. As I am not the author of this sentence, I will ask on the talk page for advice.

Y for now, it's so minor I'm not going to worry about it. If it turns out not to pass WP:V please remove it... the sentence is largely irrelevant to the article topic anyway.

• Creisler appears to be a WP:SPS problem as well

Creisler is worlds leading expert for dinosaur etymology (and is cited in Plateosaurus as well)

Y as above

• Headden is a WP:SPS problem

The dinosaur mailing list postings (written mainly by experts) are considered a useful source for dinosaur articles (see featured articles like Allosaurus or Plateosaurus).

Y as above

Sources table

Source Note <ref name=agnolin&chiarelli2009>Agnolin, F.L. and Chiarelli, P. (2010). "The position of the claws in Noasauridae (Dinosauria: Abelisauroidea) and its implications for abelisauroid manus evolution." ''Paläontologische Zeitschrift'', published online 19 November 2009. {{doi|10.1007/s12542-009-0044-2}}</ref> Y <ref name="albino2000">Albino A. M. (2000). "New record of snakes from the Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina)". ''Geodiversitas'' 22(2):247-253.</ref> Y <ref name="bakker1998">{{cite journal |last=Bakker|first=Robert|year=1998 |title=Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues |journal=Gaia |volume=15|pages=145–158}}</ref> Y <ref name="bonaparte1985">{{Cite journal | last1 = Bonaparte | first1 =José F. | authorlink = José Bonaparte | year = 1985 | title = A horned Cretaceous carnosaur from Patagonia | journal = National Geographic Research | volume = 1 | issue =1 | pages = 149–151 }}</ref> Y <ref name="bonaparte1990">{{Cite journal| last=Bonaparte |first=José F.|coauthors=Fernando E. Novas and Rodolfo A. Coria |year=1990 |title=''Carnotaurus sastrei'' Bonaparte, the horned, lightly built carnosaur from the Middle Cretaceous of Patagonia |journal=Contributions in Science (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County |volume=416|url=http://www.nhm.org/site/sites/default/files/pdf/contrib_science/CS416.pdf |pages=41 pp}}</ref> Y <ref name="bonaparte1991">{{Cite journal|first=José F.| last=Bonaparte |title=The Gondwanian Theropod Families Abelisauridae and Noasauridae |journal=Historical Biology |year=1991 |volume=5 |page=1 |publisher=Harwood Academic Publishers}}</ref> Y <ref name="bonaparte1996">{{cite journal| first=José F. |last=Bonaparte |title=Cretaceous tetrapods of Argentinia |journal=Münchener Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlung |volume=A (30) |date=1996 |page=89}}</ref> Y <ref name="calvoetal2004">{{Cite journal| volume = 41| issue = 4| pages = 555–563| last = Calvo| first = J. O.| coauthors = D. Rubilar-Rogers, K. Moreno| title = A new Abelisauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from northwest Patagonia| journal = Ameghiniana| date =2004 | url = http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0083.pdf}}</ref> Y <ref name="canaleetal2009">Canale, J.I., Scanferla, C.A., Agnolin, F., & Novas, F.E. (2009). "New carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of NW Patagonia and the evolution of abelisaurid theropods." Naturwissenschaften. {{doi|10.1007/s00114-008-0487-4}}.</ref> Y <ref name="candeiro2005">{{cite journal| title=Abelisauroidea and carchardontosauridae (theropoda, dinosauria) in the cretaceous of south america. Paleogeographical and geocronological implications |first=Carlos Roberto dos Anjos |last=Candeiro |coauthors=Agustín Guillermo Martinelli |journal=Uberlândia [Sociedade de Naturaleza] |volume=17 |pages=5–19 |issue=33}}</ref> Y <ref name="carabajal2011">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1080/02724634.2011.550354| issn = 0272-4634| volume = 31| issue = 2| pages = 379| last = Paulina Carabajal| first = Ariana| title = The braincase anatomy of ''Carnotaurus sastrei'' (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia| journal = Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology| date = 2011}}</ref> Y <ref name="carrano2008">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1017/S1477201907002246| issn = 1477-2019, 1478-0941| volume = 6| pages = 183–236| last = Carrano| first = Matthew T.| coauthors = Scott D. Sampson| title = The Phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda)| journal = Journal of Systematic Palaeontology| date = 2008-01| url =http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S1477201907002246| issue = 2}}</ref> Y <ref name="chure1998">{{Cite journal| volume = 15| pages = 233–240| last = Chure| first = Daniel J.| title = On the orbit of theropod dinosaurs| journal = Gaia| date = 1998}}</ref> Y <ref name="creisler">{{cite web| url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110710132218/http://dinosauria.com/dml/dmlf.htm |author=Ben Creisler |publisher=Dinosauria On-Line|title=Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide |date=7 July 2003 |access=27. December 2012}}</ref> Y WP:SPS OK in this case <ref name="coria2002">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0460:ANCROC]2.0.CO;2| issn = 0272-4634| volume = 22| issue = 2| pages = 460| last = Coria| first = Rodolfo A.| coauthors = Luis M. Chiappe, Lowell Dingus| title = A new close relative of Carnotaurus sastrei Bonaparte 1985 (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia| journal = Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology| date = 2002| url = http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282002%29022%5B0460%3AANCROC%5D2.0.CO%3B2| year = 2002}}</ref> Y <ref name="czerkas1997">{{cite book |last=Czerkas |first=Stephen A. |coauthors=Sylvia J. Czerkas| chapter=The Integument and Life Restoration of Carnotaurus| title=Dinofest International |editors=D. I. Wolberg, E. Stump, G. D. Rosenberg |publisher=Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia |date=1997| pages=155–158}}</ref> Y <ref name="debus2009">{{Cite book| publisher = McFarland| isbn = 978-0-7864-4281-2| last = Debus| first = Allen A.| title = Prehistoric Monsters: The Real and Imagined Creatures of the Past That We Love to Fear| date = 2009-11-30 |page=270}}</ref> Y <ref name="ezcurra2010">{{Cite journal| volume = 2450| pages = 14| last = Ezcurra| first = M. D.| coauthors = F. L. Agnolin, F. E. Novas| title = An abelisauroid dinosaur with a non-atrophied manus from the Late Cretaceous Pari Aike Formation of southern Patagonia| journal = Zootaxa| date = 2010| url = http://mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/z02450p025f.pdf}}</ref> Y <ref name="gasparinifuente2000">{{cite journal| last=Gasparini |first=Zulma |coauthors=Marcelo de la Fuente |title=Tortugas y Plesiosaurios de la Formación La Colonia (Cretácico Superior) de Patagonia, Argentina |date=2000 |journal=Revista Española de Paleontología |volume=15 |pages=23 |issue=1}}</ref> Y <ref name="glut1997">{{Cite book| publisher = McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers| isbn = 978-0-375-82419-7| last = Glut| first = Donald F.| title = Dinosaurs, the encyclopedia| date = 1997 |chapter=''Carnotaurus'' |pages=256–259}}</ref> Y <ref name="glut1997b">{{cite book |last=Glut |first=Donald F.| chapter=Dinosaur Valley Dinosaurs| title=Dinofest International |editors=D. I. Wolberg, E. Stump, G. D. Rosenberg |publisher=Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia |date=1997| pages=182}}</ref> Y <ref name="glut2003">{{cite book |first=Donald F. |last=Glut |title=Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. 3rd Supplement |date=2003 |publisher=McFarland & Company, Inc. |location=Jefferson, North Carolina |isbn=0-7864-1166-X |chapter=''Carnotaurus''|pages=274–276}}</ref> Y <ref name="glut2000">{{cite book |first=Donald F. |last=Glut |title=Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. 1st Supplement |date=2000 |publisher=McFarland & Company, Inc. |location=Jefferson, North Carolina |isbn=0786405910 |chapter=''Carnotaurus''|pages=165–167}}</ref> Y <ref name="hamblin">{{Cite book| publisher = Dorrance Publishing| isbn = 978-1-4349-9605-3| last = Hamblin| first = Cory| title = Serket's Movies: Commentary and Trivia on 444 Movies| date = 2009-11-19 |page=80–81}}</ref> Y <ref name="headden2006">{{cite web |url=http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Sep/msg00258.html |author=Jaime A. Headden |title=Re: ''Carnotaurus sastrei'' etymology| publisher=Dinosaur Mailing List |date=19 September 2006}}</ref> Y WP:SPS OK in this case <ref name="hartman2012">{{Cite web| url=http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.de/2012/03/carnotaurus-delving-into-self-parody.html#more|title=Carnotaurus – delving into self-parody? |author=Scott Hartman|year=2012| access=7.12.2012}}</ref> Y WP:SPS OK in this case <ref name="kielanjaworowska2007">Kielan−Jaworowska, Z., Ortiz−Jaureguizar, E., Vieytes, C., Pascual, R., & Goin, F.J. (2007). "First ?cimolodontan multi−tuberculate mammal from South America". ''Acta Palaeontologica Polonica'' 52(2): 257–262.</ref> Y format problems <ref name="lawver2011">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.2992/007.080.0104| volume = 80| issue = 1| pages = 35–42| last = Lawver| first = Daniel R.| coauthors = Aj M. Debee, Julia A. Clarke, Guillermo W. Rougier| title = A New Enantiornithine Bird from the Upper Cretaceous La Colonia Formation of Patagonia, Argentina| journal = Annals of Carnegie Museum| date = 2011-12-01| url = http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2992/007.080.0104}}</ref> Y <ref name="mazzettaetal2004">{{Cite journal | last1 = Mazzetta | first1 = G.V. | last2 = Christiansen | first2 = P. | last3 = Fariña | first3 = R.A. | year = 2004 | title = Giants and Bizarres: Body size of some southern South American Cretaceous dinosaurs | url = | journal = Historical Biology | volume = 16 | issue = 2| pages = 71–83 | doi = 10.1080/08912960410001715132 }}</ref> Y <ref name="GVPaleobiology">{{cite journal |last=Mazzetta |first=Gerardo V. |coauthors=Richard A. Fariña, Sergio F. Vizcaíno|year=1998 |title=On the palaeobiology of the South American horned theropod ''Carnotaurus sastrei'' Bonaparte |journal=Gaia |volume=15|pages=185–192|url=http://www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000782-MG-DOC-web.PDF}}</ref> Y <ref name="mazzetta1999">{{cite journal |first=Gerardo V. |last=Mazzetta |coauthors=R. A. Farina |date=1999 |title=Estimacion de la capacidad atlética de ''Amargasaurus cazaui'' Salgado y Bonaparte, 1991, y ''Carnotaurus sastrei'' Bonaparte, 1985 (Saurischia, Sauropoda-Theropoda) |journal=XIV jornadas Argentinas de paleontologia de vertebrados, Ameghiniana |volume=Band 36 |pages=105–106 |language=Spanisch |issue=1}}</ref> Y <ref name="GVMetal09">{{cite journal |last=Mazzetta |first=Gerardo V. |coauthors=Cisilino, Adrián P.; Blanco, R. Ernesto; and Calvo, Néstor |year=2009 |title=Cranial mechanics and functional interpretation of the horned carnivorous dinosaur ''Carnotaurus sastrei''|journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=822–830 |doi=10.1671/039.029.0313}}</ref> Y <ref name="mendez">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.4202/app.2011.0129| issn = 05677920| last = Méndez| first = Ariel| title = The cervical vertebrae of the Late Cretaceous abelisaurid dinosaur Carnotaurus sastrei| journal = Acta Palaeontologica Polonica| accessdate = 2012-12-30| date = in press| url = http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20110129.html}}</ref> Y <ref name="novas2009">{{Cite book| publisher = Indiana University Press| isbn = 978-0-253-35289-7 | last = Novas| first = Fernando E.| title = The age of dinosaurs in South America| location = Bloomington| date = 2009}}</ref> Y <ref name="Paul1988PDW">{{ cite book | author=[[Gregory S. Paul|Paul]], G.S. | title=Predatory Dinosaurs of the World | year=1988 |pages=284–285 |isbn=0-671-61946-2 }}</ref> Y <ref name="pascual2000">{{Cite journal| volume = 22| issue = 3| pages = 395, 399–400| last = Pascual| first = R.| coauthors = F. J. Goin, P. González, A. Ardolino, P. F. Puerta| title = A highly derived docodont from the Patagonian Late Cretaceous: evolutionary implications for Gondwanan mammals| journal = Geodiversitas| date = 2000| url = http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/geodiv/g00n3a4.pdf PDF}}</ref> Y <ref name="personscurrie2011">{{cite doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0025763}}</ref> Y <ref name="ruiz2011">{{Cite journal| volume = 54| issue = 6| pages = 1271–1277| last = Ruiz| first = J.| coauthors = A. Torices, H. Serrano, V. López| title = The hand structure of ''Carnotaurus sastrei'' (Theropoda, Abelisauridae): implications for hand diversity and evolution in abelisaurids| journal = Palaeontology| date = 2011| doi = 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01091.x}}</ref> Y <ref name="salgadobonaparte1991">{{cite journal|first=Leonardo |last=Salgado |coauthors=José Bonaparte |year=1991 |title=Un nuevo sauropodo Dicraeosauridae, ''Amargasaurus cazaui'' gen. et sp. nov., de la Formacion La Amarga, Neocomiano de la Provincia del Neuquén, Argentina |journal=Ameghiniana |volume=28 |language=Spanisch| page=334 |issue=3–4}}</ref> Y <ref name="sampson2007">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[32:CAOMCT]2.0.CO;2| volume = 27| issue = sp8| pages = 95–96| last =Sampson| first = Scott D.| coauthors = Lawrence M. Witmer| title = Craniofacial Anatomy of ''Majungasaurus crenatissimus'' (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) From the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar| journal = Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology| date = 2007| issn = 0272-4634| year = 2007}}</ref> Y <ref name="senter2010">{{cite doi|10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00640.x|pages=66}}</ref> Y <ref name="sereno2004">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1098/rspb.2004.2692| volume = 271| issue = 1546| pages = 1325–1330| last = Sereno| first = P. C.| coauthors = J. A. Wilson, J. L. Conrad| title = New dinosaurs link southern landmasses in the Mid-Cretaceous| journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences| date = 2004-07-07| url = http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2004.2692}}</ref> Y <ref name="sereno_carnotaurinae">{{cite web|url=http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=73 |title=Carnotaurinae |first=Paul |last=Sereno|work=Taxon Search|date=2005|access=29 December 2012}}</ref> Y WP:SPS OK in this case <ref name="sereno_carnotaurini">{{cite web|url=http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=74 |title=Carnotaurini |first=Paul |last=Sereno|work=Taxon Search|date=2005|access=29 December 2012}}</ref> Y WP:SPS OK in this case <ref name="sterli2011">{{Cite journal| volume = 54| issue = 1| pages = 65| last = Sterli| first = Juliana| coauthors = Marcelo S. de la Fuente| title = A new turtle from the La Colonia Formation (Campanian–Maastrichtian), Patagonia, Argentina, with remarks on the evolution of the vertebral column in turtles| journal = Palaeontology| date = 2011| doi = 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.01002.x}}</ref> Y <ref name="therrien2005">{{cite book|editor=Kenneth Carpenter |title=The carnivorous dinosaurs |first=François |last=Therrien |coauthors=Donald Henderson, Christopher Ruff |chapter=Bite Me – Biomechanical Models of Theropod Mandibles and Implications for Feeding Behavior |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=0-253-34539-1 |date=2005 |pages=179–198, 228}}</ref> Y <ref name=tykoskirowe2004>{{cite_book |last=Tykoski |first=Ronald B. |coauthors=& Rowe, Timothy. |year=2004 |chapter=Ceratosauria |editor=[[David Weishampel|Weishampel, David B.]]; [[Peter Dodson|Dodson, Peter]]; & Osmólska, Halszka (eds.) |title=The Dinosauria |edition=Second |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |pages=65 |isbn=0-520-24209-2}}</ref> Y <ref name="valieri2010">{{Cite journal| pages = 161–169| last = Juárez Valieri| first = Rubén D.| coauthors = Juan D. Porfiri and Jorge O. Calvo| title = New information on ''Ekrixinatosaurus novasi'' Calvo et al 2004, a giant and massively-constructed Abelisauroid from the ''Middle Cretaceous''of Patagonia| journal = Paleontologıa y Dinosaurios en América Latina| date = 2010}}</ref> Y <ref name="wilson2003">{{Cite journal| publisher = Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan| last = Wilson| first = J. A.| coauthors = P. C. Sereno, S. Srivastava, D. K. Bhatt, A. Khosla, A. Sahni| title = A new abelisaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Lameta Formation (Cretaceous, Maastrichtian) of India| journal=Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology |volume=31| page=25| date = 2003| url = http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/41259/2/C31-1.pdf |issue=1}}</ref> Y <ref>{{cite web|title=Disney's 'Dinosaur' Attraction|url=http://allearsnet.com/tp/ak/akctx.htm|access=2 January 2013 |publisher=AllEars.net}}</ref> style="background: #EEE; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; text-align: center; " class="table-Un­known" | ? editor will follow up on this, won't hold up GA

Post-GA suggestions

I'm placing anything I've run across that isn't a stopper for GA but you might want to look at for FA in this section.

• Too much passive voice, try rewording to avoid it

I don't see this problem. Could you give examples?

• The layout in the lead isn't what I'm expecting. I expect the first paragraph of the lead to describe the animal. The second or third paragraph might go on to explain how it was discovered, etc. The first paragraph is 6 sentences, the first two are fine and what I expect, the next 4 sentences talk about its discovery and name. I really expect to have that first paragraph have all the description content that's in the second paragraph: Carnotaurus was a lightly built,[1] bipedal predator... Consider ordering the lead this way: make the first paragraph a description of the animal itself, the second paragraph should contain what is currently in the third paragraph ("The distinctive horns and the muscular neck...") that describes its adaptations and behaviors, and the third paragraph should be about the finding and condition of the skeleton. Do you think that would make a more sensible layout? ... Later adding: Actually the lead layout is probably fine, it appears to match how FA dino articles are doing it.

• Can you change "not unlike" to "like" or "similar to"... etc.?

• " arguing that similar structures can be found on the neck of today's Iguana where they provided"... consider "the modern Iguana, where they provide"

• Also, a number of the Bonaparte 1990 back-links do not work. They are lettered 'a' through 'w' but if you click on a few of them, like 'p' and 'q', you don't jump anywhere. What's going on?

I do not know. I will ask somewhere for advice.

Alright, this isn't a stopper for GA but this needs to be fixed for FA.

• Not required for GA but it'd be nice if you could clean up your refs a little... For example, the several entries for the books Glut's encyclopedia could be made consistent

will do that

• What's the reason that Bonaparte 1990 is referenced both generally without page numbers as a numbered reference, and also with specific page numbers with a lettered reference?

The source for this sentence (A comprehensive description of the whole skeleton followed in 1990.) does not require specific page numbers because the whole work is meant. But the remaining two ones need more specific numbers. Will do that.

copyright issue?

The photo File:Carnotaurus Sastrei.JPG was submitted as "my own work" but appears to be that person's photo of someone else's sculpture. Is that clearly free of copyright issues? I'm no expert on these matters - was just surprised that the provenance was so informal. -- Scray (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily always a problem, but I can see there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Argentina where the photo is from:[11] This means the image will have to be deleted. I'll replace it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Skull width

The descriptions in this article emphasize the depth and robustness of the skull, but it's still quite unclear in the article how "wide" this animal's skull actually was. In the Kenosha Dinosaur Museum photo, the skull (and mandible) appears quite narrow from side-to-side. However, other images of the skull turned up by Google appear to show a much broader skull, which is more what I would expect from the descriptive text of both the skull and the neck. Is the Kenosha photo distorted, or maybe at a poorly representative angle? Are the wide-skull restorations mistaken? Is the condition of the single known skull such that people simply are restoring it in different ways? --170.145.0.100 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The skull is laterally compressed during fossilisation, most notably in its anterior portion. This compression was big enough to displace several bones; e.g., the maxillae and premaxillae are shifted closer to the midline of the skull. I think this makes it difficult to reconstruct its width. In such cases, paleontologists will need to examine skulls of closely related species that are not as badly crused to reconstruct the width. Complete skulls of Carnotaurus relatives are only known since a few years, so newer reconstructions would be more likely to be correct than older ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (I'm the OP, at a different IP at the moment). Are you familiar with the anterior-view illustration of Carnotaurus in All Yesterdays, the 2012 book by Naish, Conway, and Kosemen? I just saw it a couple days ago, was surprised at how narrow it appeared in both the skull and the pelvis, and it reminded me of the "narrow skull" photo in this article. Is the reconstructed width of these features still fairly arbitrary for this genus (within reason), and any others that are known from few individuals that were significantly compressed during preservation? --2602:304:AF8E:3C29:21C:B3FF:FEBF:8611 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert, I don't know. You could ask Scott Hartman (http://skeletaldrawing.com/), he should know that. You may wish to read the description section of the Deinonychus article; this is another genus where the skull reconstruction is controversial, showing how difficult it could be to reconstruct the exact proportions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue addressed in Méndez, A.H. 2014. "The cervical vertebrae of the Late Cretaceous abelisaurid dinosaur Carnotaurus sastrei". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59(3): 569–579. The skull as a whole of Carnotaurus was clearly more narrow than that of Majungasaurus and the snout was narrower still. Paul (2010) shows a reconstruction trying to compensate for deformation. Although this makes the snout quite broad in top view it is still essentially elongated as with most theropods, not "frog-like". However, the Kenosha mount seems not to be based on a high quality cast.--MWAK (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On the hands...

Should we reconstruct the hands of Carnotaurus like how we have them in the article now or should we use the "flesh mitten"-style? I don't know if there's a consensus on how to reconstruct the hands, so maybe we should determine one? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's little use for us to determine anything if scientists haven't. Unless some kind of mummified hand is found, we'll never know. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carnotaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dinosauria.com/dml/dmlf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carnotaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309082056/http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0083.pdf to http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0083.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403165615/http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app57/app20110129_acc.pdf to http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app57/app20110129_acc.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/41259/2/C31-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Looking at this early version, the article appears to have been written in British English. Was there a reason it was changed? --John (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. If nobody objects, I intend to restore UK English per MOS:RETAIN in a few hours before this goes TFA. --John (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The version you linked seems to contain a mixture between British and American English. British English seems to appear only in the "Popular culture" section (which has been removed serveral versions later)? I do not see that British English is prevalent. For example, there are American spellings like "characterized" or "paleobiology". But why is this important in the first place? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after your edit, we now have a mixture, since there are many American spellings left. Are you going to improve on that, or can we just head back to American English? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not make any edit that changed the variety of spelling without checking here. In the version I linked, there is also "metre". "Characterized" and "paleobiology" exist in British English as well. It's important that Wikipedia respects different spelling dialects. It's summed up in MOS:RETAIN. --John (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The current article is a very different one from that ancient stub. You could argue that since the animal is from a Spanish-speaking country, but most English language articles about it are with American spelling and published in American journals (including the original description[12]), there is better reason to keep it American than British. In any case, as mentioned above, British English does not use "paleo", but "palaeo"[13], so there is no indication the original article was even written with one variety in mind, by any single person (rather just a hodgepodge of spellings accumuating over time). The only clear UK spelling in that version seems to be "colour"; "metre" is simply the spelling used by the conversion template, and not actually spelled out in the plain text. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The version linked to wasn't a stub. MoS compliance is a FA criterion. This should have been picked up way before TFA. --John (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to spend time on providing evidence that the article was originally written in British English (I am not convinced yet) and, if there is any such evidence, on consistently changing all spellings in the article, then I have no objections to that. I would like to spend my time on more important things, however. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, there is a single UK spelling (colour) and one US spelling (paleo), so no convincing case has been made that the linked version was supposed to be in UK English. It was a chimaera to begin with, so a choice had to be made, which Jens did when he started using US English. But yes, it should be made consistent now in any case. The trivial pop culture section where "colour" appeared has been entirely nuked, though, so that problem doesn't exist anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Victory!

This is now an featured article! Carnotaurus, theropod, and Dinosauria fans rejoice!208.114.45.44 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry if this sounds silly)208.114.45.44 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been a featured article since 2014. It is only now that it is on the mainpage, though. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

D...like them both comments, wikilove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.139 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• New paper that could be cited:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carnotaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516073426/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=73 to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=73
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516073408/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=74 to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Stoa

Does anybody no about something called the stoa. Its some kind of Nonsense cryptid aka a (stupid living Carnotaurus) . This would be something we could put in the cryptid list or here somewhere in like a fiction section. I might disagree with the last one.

References

Broken reference link

The link to a pdf in Reference #2 simply leads to a 404. 152.7.255.196 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)