Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ankylosaurus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2015 [1].

Ankylosaurus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth edit

This looks like an interesting, well-written article. A few things I noticed:

  • "Hellcreek" in the lead becomes "Hell Creek" later.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some terms are glossed, others are not. You could consider glossing entheses, coracoid, centra.
Fixed entheses, the others are a bit more tricky, will try. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now, but these features are almost impossible to describe in few words. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The feet of Ankylosaurus are incompletely known, but the hindfeet probably had three toes, like in related animals." - this sentence is awkwardly expressed.
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would prefer "as is the case in related animals". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dorsal vertebrae (of the back) were tightly spaced, which limited their downwards movement." - I don't understand this sentence.
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... coossified (fused) to them" - why not just say "fused".
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These horns may have originally been osteoderms (amor plates) that fused to the skull, though the scale pattern on the skull surface was instead the result of remodelling of the skull." - This sentence is a bit complex and could be split.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a diamond shaped scale (internarial scale) was present at the font of the snout, the two squamosal osteoderms above the orbit, and a ridge of scales was present at the back of the skull." - This is also awkward and confusing.
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mandible of Ankylosaurus was proportionally low to its length compared to other ankylosaurs" - this could be better expressed.
Better now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the "compared to other ankylosaurs" at the beginning of the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... ranging from one margin to the other on the midline of its osteoderms." - Perhaps "stretching" would be better.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Armor" contains a great many repetitions of "may have been" and "may have".
Now has more variation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "History" section, it is useful if you introduce each scientist as you first mention them, in the same way as you have done for Barnum Brown. The first time you mention Carpenter, you don't even give his first name.
Carpenter is first mentioned and linked already under description, but made some more presentation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus are sometimes thought to be sister taxa, but have also been found in different positions." - This is awkwardly expressed.
Simplified and updated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The researchers also supported the loops acting as a resonance chamber" - did they find the loops very heavy?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low-tuned resonant sounds" - "low-toned"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the "dummy head" would lure a predator close to it, where after it could be stricken with the club" - another awkward sentence.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpenter has rejected this idea, as tail club shape is highly variable among ankylosaurids of the same genera." - I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "even those in the same genus"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of new text about feeding has been added since you read the article, Cwmhiraeth, from a paper published just two days ago. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the alterations made. The subject of the article is outside my area of expertise and the prose is necessarily heavy going. As far as I can see, the article covers the subject comprehensively and the prose is of good quality so I am prepared to support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ankylosaurus_scale.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this diagram?
  • File:Ankylosaurus_magniventris_reconstruction.png: what image or model is this based on? Same with File:Ankylosaurus_dinosaur.png
All of the above are at least partially based on Carpenter 2004[2][3], want it added to the file descriptions? The last one is maybe based on a restoration by Gregory S: Paul, I'll ping artists Ferahgo the Assassin and Dinoguy2 just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added Carpenter 2004 to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is William Diller Matthew's date of death?
1930, will add to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hell_Creek_dinosaurs_and_pterosaurs_by_durbed.jpg: given the source, how do we know this is an accurate representation? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We (at the Dinosaur Project) have sources we cross check with to see if usermade images match, but we can of course not know exactly which sources a specific artist has used. That particular artist's images were discussed here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Making my way up the FAC ladder...here now...reading....

Ankylosaurus (/ˌæŋkɨlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ki-lo-sawr-əs or /æŋˌkaɪlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ky-lo-sawr-əs, meaning "fused lizard") is a genus of ankylosaurid dinosaur. - damn I wish there was another way to say this as it sounds circular but isn't. sigh....(maybe if you described it as a genus of armoured dinosaur? (Thyreophora)
I think it's pretty important to note it's an ankylosaurid/ankylosaur in the intro though, no? Just too bad the word is derived form the genus name, heh... Thinking about it, I'm not sure though, as other articles simply say "x is a sauropod dinosaur", "x is a theropod dinosaur", etc... Pretty broad groups. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to thyreophoran anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why I mentioned thyreophoran is that it is synonymous with what laypeople would call "armoured dinosaur and hence is a common reference point - a bit like why we call a sparrow a bird and not a vertebrate or something....I'd use th eterm "armoured dinosaur" and pipe it to the article as a synonym..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it seems Carpenter uses "armored dinosaur" as a synonym of Ankylosauria, since I wouldn't say Ankylosaurus is more famous than Stegosaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this by chance: Peter Galton (in "The complete dinosaur", first edition) notes that "Armoured dinosaur" historically refers to both Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs, because Ankylosaurs where treated as a subgroup of the Stegosauria. The modern meaning however is different. He writes: "The term armored dinosaur now refers to a member of the Ankylosauria" (p. 295). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah ok. Alright, the term is nebulous enough to undermine its usefulness as a plain English term. Oh well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first para has alot of "ankylosaur-" words in it...if you could even cull one I think it would help make it sound less repetitive.
Changed a bit, is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of taphonomy and individual variation. - umm, surely you mean something like, "The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of individual variation and degradation." - taphonomy itself doesn't make the skulls different..?
Well, taphonomy is anything that happens with the animal on its way to fossilisation, so would include distortion and breakage. Carpenter says "There is considerable difference among the three skulls, which for the present, is best explained as taphonomic and (or) individual variation." Perhaps if we say in parenthesis (changes happening during fossilisation of the remains)? It may seem vague, but Carpenter doesn't specify exactly what he thinks would have happened, and taphonomy does not only cover decay. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but taphonomy is the study of these events, not the process. Agree my wording is too narrow. I think you have to use as an adjective - "taphonomic process" or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
within the clade Thyreophora, consisting of armored dinosaurs --> "within the clade Thyreophora, commonly known as armored dinosaurs" - indicates the relationship better
Added, but kind of leaves a problem of inconsistency. Carpenter seems to use armored dinosaur as a synonym of ankylosaur, not thyreophoran, which this article has kind of followed. Do we have a source that states armored dinosaur is a synonym of Thyreophora today? I may have circumvented the problem by saying "Ankylosaurus is often considered the archetypal member of its group" instead of armored dinosaur now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the last fix is a good one - interesting question about what the lay term "armoured dinosaur" is equivalent to. Hadn't seen what Carpenter says but clouds the issue definitely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may have something to do with his use of the term "Ankylosauromorpha" (which includes Scelidosaurus), which is apparently not recognised by newer research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ankylosauromorpha is considered invalid. There seems to be a bit of info on the group here. Mainly, ankylosauromorpha was defined twice by Carpenter (2001), one of which makes it a synonym of Scelidosauridae and the other a paraphyletic group. IJReid discuss 04:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack edit

Excellent work. I'm not sure if I am allowed to vote as I already have contributed quite a bit, but I wish to provide some additional feedback:

Thanks, and Jens, there are two issues you may be able to help with: Does "armored dinosaur" refer to Ankylosauria or Thyreophora? Carpenter seems to indicate the former (perhaps due to his use of Ankylosauromorpha?), while the latter maybe seems more widespread. And what does "ankylosaur" refer to, members of Ankylosauria, Ankylosauridae, Ankylosaurus, or all of these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, the first question is tricky, you are right. I think the term "amored dinosaur" in most cases refers to Ankylosauria. For example, Paul Sereno writes in his "The evolution of bird-hipped dinosaurs (Ornithischia)": "Ornithischian dinosaurs comprise an extraordinary radiation of land-dwelling herbivores that include such familiar forms as the stegosaurs (plated dinosaurs), ankylosaurs (armored dinosaurs), hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs), pachycephalosaurs (thick-headed dinosaurs), and ceratopsids (horned dinosaurs)." However, for example in the book "The Armored Dinosaurs" (edited by Carpenter) the term refers to the Thyreophora. I'm not sure, but I see no problem if we use the term consequently and make clear what exactly we mean with it. For the second question: Ankylosaur refers to Ankylosauria. Ankylosaurid refers to Ankylosauridae, and Ankylosaurine to Ankylosaurinae. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made a few changes accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The] coracoid (which connects the shoulder and arms) – I think this formulation might cause misunderstandings. The coracoid is not the sole link between shoulder and arms, as the arm (the humerus) is connected to the shoulder blade (scapula) as well. Both the scapula, coracoid, and humerus contribute to the glenoid.
Better if I say "which connects the shoulder blade and arms"? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its better. I still have concerns about the word "connects", so I just changed it to an alternative formulation. Its a very minor issue (if any), so please revert if you are not happy with it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "description", some bones are described in detail, including the scapula, humerus, and femur, including length measurements. During my first read I wondered why these bones were described while other bones were not mentioned at all. I guess that is because the other bones simply are not known. Maybe you could, before starting with the description, add a little bit more about the fragmentarity of the remains, and shortly state what is known and what is not?
The scarcity of remains is mentioned under history, but I should maybe move it up to description? I have now, and it looks ok. FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
great! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the complex sinuses of ankylosaurs may have lightened the weight of the skull, housed a nasal gland, or acted as a chamber for vocal resonance. – This formulation might be confusing; I think that the "vocal resonance" theory was suggested not for the maxillary or premaxillary sinuses, but only for the looped nasal passage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carpenter says "The function of the sinuses in ankylosaur skulls is problematic. Maryanska (1977, p. 117) suggested the function was to reduce skull weight, house a nasal gland, or act as a resonating chamber." So he does not mention the nasal passage in the sentence, but is he perhaps unintentionally misquoting? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I can't find it in Maryanska (1977) though (might be my fault, its a long paper and I did not read everything). She mentiones the pneumatisation of the palatinum, and that the chambers inside this bone might have been resonance boxes. She also compares the nasal cavity of ankylosaurs with hadrosaurs, and mentions that the interpretation of the hadrosaurian crest as resonance devices is "probable, but only as additional and secondary function of that passage". I do not want to say that Carpenter did a mistake (its a bit to complex for me to be sure), so perhaps we should just leave it as it is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, Carpenter cited p. 117. Than it is definitely a mistake, as page 117 is about the pneumatisation in the palatine (which has nothing to do with the nasal cavity/sinuses). We should cite Maryanska (1977) directly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maryanska is cited, so I hope the two are not contradictory... FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Jens Lallensack, I think it is alright for you to vote on this FAC, since your additions were only made well after the nomination. Would probably have been different if you had added material before. Reviewers often do some editing of articles during review. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support, Jens, I've removed the few occurrences of "armored dinosaurs", just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new paper[5] which has some extra information about Ankylosaurus has just been published, and the new info will be added within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info from the new paper has now been added, and the new text can be seen here:[6] Pinging reviewers Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, and Jens Lallensack, in case they have suggestions for the new text. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Looking over the sourcing, no issues leapt out re. formatting or reliability. Also no dab/duplinks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2015 (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/Ankylosaurus/archive1&oldid=674007879"