Talk:Nigersaurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A great article, and fun to read. I have only found some minor issues, most of them are not even necessary to resolve for reaching GA.

• Nigersaurus was fairly small for a sauropod; with a body length of only 9 m (30 ft) and a femur reaching only 1 m (3 ft 3 in). It also had a comparably short neck with only 13 cervical vertebrae. -> I would remove that "only", it seems, at best, unnecessary. Brachiosaurids also had a neck with "only" 13 cervical vertebrae despite of having very long necks. That count was enhanced by various sauropod linages independently, but 13 is the plesiomorphic standard count.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The vertebral arches were merely 2 mm (0.079 in) intersecting laminae. -> I don't understand. When viewed in cross section?

The source states that "External pneumatic diverticulae, in turn, have reduced the dorsal neural arches to a set of intersecting laminae". LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The pelvic and pectoral girdles were very thin, being only several millimetres thick. -> perhaps "The pelvic and pectoral girdle bones were very thin, often being only several millimetres thick"?

Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• for the "Description" section, you could emphasize the peculiar shape of the muzzle which is box shaped with all teeth standing in a straight line perpendicular to the sagittal plane. That's very distinctive, as other dinosaurs have most of their teeth arranged in a line parallel to the sagittal plane.

Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The holotype specimen (MNN GAD512) consists of a partial skull and neck, a scapula and limb material found nearby were also referred to the same specimen. -> The holotype is only the skull and neck, right? While reading the sentence, you expect that the scapula and limb material belong to the holotype unless you read the end of the sentence. A ";" or "while" may is better here, e.g. "the skull and neck; a scapula and limb material".

Yup, I'll try with a full stop. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• you could add a sentence about skull openings, as these are distinctive and according to Sereno 2007 (page 1) "have never been reported in any other sauropodomorph dinosaur": The supratemporal fenestra (that one visible when viewing the skull from above) is closed; and five additional fenestrae on the lateral side of the skull. This way, at least some autapomorphies are mentioned.

Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• The picture of the teeth is a bit blurred. There is a nice picture in Whitlock 2011, page 4. What about that?

Replaced, though I was a bit sad that there were no better pictures of a whole tooth! FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• lateral orientation of the tooth batteries -> perhaps "lateral orientation of the tooth row"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaced, but now it rhymes! Row show. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review, Jens! I and Jerry will fix the issues soon. We're also thinking of getting this to FAC, and will expand the description and behaviour sections. Any suggestions on how it could be further readied for FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

further suggestions

To help ready the article for FAC, I have read the article a second time and found some more minor issues.

• The presacral vertebrae (vertebrae before the sacrum) were heavily pneumatised to the point where the column was a hollow tube. It had little to no cancellous bone making the centra (filled with air spaces) a thin wall. -> I suggest to formulate the whole pneumatisation part new from scratch. The column was no "hollow tube", this would mean that air could move between individual vertebrae, and this was not the case. The bracket (filled with air spaces) seems to be misplaced and distracts the flow in reading (I had to read that sentence three times). Making the centra a thin wall – that formulation seems unfortunate, as the centrum is no single wall.

I think I've fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• possible addition: "The limbs were robustly built as seen in other sauropods, contrasting with the extremely lightweight construction of the rest of the skeleton. [1]" This may fit well before As in most diplodocoids, the front legs of Nigersaurus were only 66% the length of back legs.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• The most distinguishing feature of Nigersaurus was its wide muzzle and small teeth – "small teeth" would mean "short teeth"; the cited source only says "slender teeth" as far as I can see.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• The teeth were packed into dental batteries, as in hadrosaurs and certopsians,[2] which were embedded deep into the jaw. These batteries consisted of 68 columns in the upper jaw and 60 columns in the lower jaw. Each column consisted of ten teeth and Nigersaurus had more than 500 active and replacement teeth. The upper teeth were slightly broader. – When you do not now what a "dental battery" is, than you would have to read this paragraph at least two times before getting an idea. What about rearanging the succession of information? E.g. "The teeth were continuously replaced. Under each active tooth there was a column out of 9 replacement teeth within the jaw. With 68 columns in the upper jaw and 60 columns in the lower jaw, these so called dental batteries comprise a total of more than 500 active and replacement teeth. The upper teeth were slightly broader."

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the classification section, what about a sentence like "the Rebbachisauridae is the basalmost family within the Diplodocoidea, which also contains the long necked Diplodocids and the short necked Dicraeosaurids". The reason for this: The penultimate sentence of the classification section (The discovery of these basal diplodocoids may …) expect you to know that the Rebbachisauridae is the basalmost group, so this should be mentioned earlier.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• A comparison with other Rebbachisaurids would be a nice to have, but this would mean quite a lot of reading into recent descriptions of related genera.

Unless Nigersaurus is specifically mentioned in those papers, I think it would be too close to original synthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nigersaurus probably would not have been able to chew for very long. – Was it able to chew at all? It only had those cropping teeth.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• On the basis of µCT scans of skull elements of a single individual, Sereno's team created a "prototype" Nigersaurus skull they could examine. They found that the semicircular canals of its inner ear … – Here, information seem to be mixed up? The brain and inner ear was reconstructed based on the exceptional well preserved braincase, by taking an endocast and by making micro CT scans. The Prototype was made to examine the delicate skull bones.

As far as I can tell, the supplemental information indicates it was used to examine the brain as well? FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I see the distinction, split. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• possible addition: From which type of sediment do the fossils come from? See [1]. I would consider this information as important, never forget about the geology.

Yup, didn't see it before today. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• A pity that there is no more space for this location map ([2]), but perhaps it would make a good addition to the article Gadoufaoua. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Added there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have since added the map here, Jens Lallensack, and I just thought of another image issue... I added this cropped figure[3] of skull reconstructions from the Sereno Plos paper to avoid the lower part of the original image[4], which shows the supposed "neutral" head postures of various sauropods, based on theories that seem rather controversial... But I'm still wondering whether the full version should be used for the sake of completeness... But on the other hand, I feel it is better to just show the non-controversial part of the image, also because it will be less confusing for the general reader to understand... FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk! I think there is generally no problem in mentioning and illustrating controversial theories, as long as the reader is informed that not everybody agrees. But I nevertheless find the current image better, since, as you said, the full image is just a bit too much and confusing. Just my personal opinion! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, then we agree! And oh, didn't notice this was a subsection of the GA, usually they are not supposed to be commented in after the pass, but well, it was helpful after all... FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that'll get us going! FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Everything should be addressed, and much has been expanded. Any further comments or edits are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)