Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deinocheirus/archive1

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) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Deinocheirus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) IJReid (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which was only known from a pair of giant arms since 1965, and remained a scientific mystery until more fossils were described just last year. This setup was greatly paid off by just how bizarre the animal turned out to be; a humpbacked, duckbilled, ostrich-dinosaur... With enormous hands. Since only three specimens are known, their history is described in detail, and all important sources about the animal have been cited. Since the true nature of this dinosaur was revealed so recently, most available images only show the original pair of arms, spiced up with a few additional images created in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The articles is pretty good, but it needs to be clarified a little bit. A few of the terms may be confusing by some peoples standards. Also, the article does not make clear whether Deinocheirus is an herbivore or a carnivore, though it implies Deinocheirus might be an herbivore. I think that that information should be added. Gug01 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for comment, could you list which terms that need clarification? And the article mentions several times that the animal was an omnivore, therefore neither. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg: what is the basis of this image? Same with File:Map_mn_umnugobi_aimag.png, File:TarbosaurusDB.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The first one is based on a skeletal restoration in a 2014 scientific paper, I'll reference it in the file description. The Tarbosaurus image should be based on a skeletal restoration of that animal, but I'm not the author of the image, so cannot point to the exact publication. What do you mean about what the map is based on? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did the creator know where to put the borders? Was it based on a previously existing map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, IJReid could you take a look at adding the 2014 ref to the restoeration, then I'll see if I can find a more "official" source for map location. Perhaps even a map form a scientific paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, although commons doesn't seem to have any more than a single author parameter. IJReid ^discuss 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I found a much more relevant map in this free scientific paper[2], showing the location of the formation itself, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I have made some copy edits. Change any you are not happy with.

My only concern if whether or not "understorey" is canadian/british english, as the rest of the article is this. IJReid ^discuss

Thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that Deinocheirus mirificus is the only species in the genus. If so, the lead should says so.

Mentioned.

• Why is the article about the genus and not the species? The infobox gives the species binomial name, implying that this is the subject of the article.

Well, the genus only has one species so all info about the species is also about the genus and vice versa which is why monotypic genera have a genus not species article. I believe this was decided somewhere. IJReid ^discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old Wiki Project dinosaurs convention, but dinosaurs are also more commonly referred to by their generic names in the scientific literature, so it make sense here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is my ignorance, but what do the daggers in the infobox mean? Classifications not officially recognised?

It means extinct. IJReid ^discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's currently a very slow moving discussion about those daggers: [3] In short, we don't know what to do with them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1965, a pair of large arms, shoulder girdles, and a few other bones were first discovered" This is unclear. Presumably the point is that the genus not the bones was first discovered at that time.

Added "of a new dinosaur", as it was only declared anew genus later.

• "Deinocheirus was an unusual ornithomimosaur, the largest of the group" I think clade would be better than group.

Reworded as well.

• "its skull shape indicates a diet of plants, whereas fish scales and gastroliths were found" Why diet of plants whereas gastroliths? They can be for grinding rough plant matter.

Reworded.

Reworded further, gastroliths are not only used for grinding plants.

• " have been attributed to Tarbosaurus" A bit more info would be helpful - e.g. "the predatory therapod dinosaur Tarbosaurus."

Mentioned tyrannosauridae, which should be good enough.

• "The two other known specimens are smaller, the holotype by 6%, and the smallest by 74%" Does this mean that the smallest was an infant? (I see you say below it was sub-adult.)

Mentioned.

• "The 2014 cladogram suggested that ornithomimosaurians diverged into two lineages in the Early Cretaceous; Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae." It may be my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The cladogram appears to show four divisions of the ornithomimosaurians before the Deinocheiridae/Ornithomimidae one. Also why is ornithomimosaurians not capitalised?

added "major", ornithomimosaurians is not capitalized because groups above genus rank are only capitalized when the original Linnaean name is written, such as Ornithomimosauria. IJReid ^discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as specimens have been found 50 km apart." I do not understand this. Surely 50 km would be an absurdly small range for such a large animal?

For three specimens, might want to ask FunkMonk on this one. IJReid ^discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The source says "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III". So will add "within the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• "It may have competed for trees with other large herbivorous dinosaurs" Why particularly trees and not other plants? Also this comment is repeated below.

Reworded

• The last paragraph in the article is not about Deinocheirus. I would make it a shorter introductory paragraph in the palaeocology section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it discusses contemporaries of Deinocheirus, which is of some importance to the article. IJReid ^discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is there to put the animal in its ecological context. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anything else, Dudley Miles? FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support and one quibble. "This specimen became the holotype of the currently only species Deinocheirus mirificus in 1970." This is clumsy and "currently" is WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps "In 1970, this specimen became the holotype of the genus's only species, Deinocheirus mirificus." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reworded, but kept currently. It only takes one new discovery which could happen or may already have happened but not been described at any time to find a new species, so we cannot look into the future. IJReid ^discuss 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, but for a similar reason 'currently' is generally prohibited - one discovery and the article is no longer correct. The usual solution is to say "as of [date]". I thought of suggesting this but it seemed a bit pedantic for the lead. Maybe it should go in. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk, can you look at this? IJReid ^discuss 14:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Reworded further. "Currently" is redundant, since if a new species is discovered, we will change the text to reflect this. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm slowly going through this article looking for grammar issues, and it looks pretty good so far. One thing that stuck out to me, however, the use of millimeters and inches (in Description) for an animal that is so large. I fear there may be a disconnect for the reader with a sentence like "The only known skull, belonging to the largest specimen, measures 1,024 mm (40.3 in)". That may be how the description appears in the scientific literature, but it seems overly technical in an encyclopedia for general readers.

Should larger units be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think so, at least for the larger measurements. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this, IJReid? I'm not much of a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, now the smallest unit is cm. IJReid ^discuss 15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite this concern, the rest of the article is looking good so far. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as the only three specimens found have been 50 km (31 mi) apart." Seems like a mistake. Is there a missing "not"? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also discussed above, it is within the formation, the paper says: "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III,". FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

After this edit, it's more clear what was meant. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron, long time no see! Will look at these comments later when I get home. And thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey FM! It's very good to see you! I'll do a more thorough copyedit tomorrow, but things are looking good. Keep up the good work. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing I noticed, looking through the article at the images, was the large number of images of those famous huge arms. But this article has no image of the entire fossil skeleton. Are there really no free skeletal diagrams? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No photos yet apart form the skull (which we are extremely lucky to have!), since the new fossils were only described last year, in a non-free journal. We do have a couple of selfmade diagrams, but it would probably be a bit of a copyright problem if we made a skeletal diagram based entirely on another diagram... But I'm sure more free images will be available over time, and there's already extra room at the bottom of the History of discovery section. Otherwise we'll just replace some of the current images (no need for so many casts). FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, there is nothing to be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure something more will show up. On this note, the many arm images are not just for decoration, but also to show them from different angles, in different poses, and to show that the animal is important/famous enough to be exhibited in various museums worldwide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Next up: Some reference tightening. I tried to verify the following statement: "David Lambert supported this view [that the hands of Deinocheirus were unsuited for grasping, but could instead have been used to tear prey apart] in 1983, speculating that the claws could be used for attacking other dinosaurs of all sizes. (ref name:"lambert1983") But the page numbers given, pp. 59–227, are vast. Since the citation is for a single sentence, it is odd that the page numbers are so extensive. You will probably want to narrow down the pagination for verification purposes. No one will want to hunt around through 168 pages to locate the correct info. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Will see if we can find the part of the book online (it is an old addition), otherwise it won't hurt much to just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't find anything, should it be removed? Or perhaps someone with Google books access could be asked to check? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lambert is a popular writer rather than a scientist, and so his theories wouldn't hold much weight in the scientific literature anyway. I think it's safe to remove. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed, didn't really add anything. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few places in Description where the prose seems highly technical. Rather than just wikilinking the terms, it would be helpful to the reader to explain what a few of the anatomical terms mean. "Each scapulocoracoid of the shoulder girdle has a length of 1.53 m (5.0 ft). Each half of the paired ceratobranchialia measure 42 cm (17 in). The shoulder-blade was long and narrow, and the deltopectoralis crest was pronounced and triangular. The humerus was relatively slender, and only slightly longer than the hand. The ulna and radius were elongate and not firmly connected to each other in a syndesmosis. [...] The furcula, an element not known from any other ornithomimosaurs, was U-shaped. The hindlimbs were relatively short, and the thigh bone was longer than the shin bone, as is common for large animals. The metatarsus was short and not arctometatarsalian, as in most other theropods. The claw bones of the feet were blunt and broad-tipped instead of tapered, unlike other theropods, but resembled the unguals of large ornithischian dinosaurs." Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will try to fix this tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can help. Meanwhile, there's another reference I couldn't verify because the number of pages cited are extensive. The sentence reads, "This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically, but the fauna present in the fossil record indicate it was probably deposited during the early Maastrichtian stage, at the end of the Late Cretaceous about 70 million years ago." The citation is pages 1-500, which seems like overkill for a single sentence. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems Reid fixed the source. I explained some anatomical terms, but not sure what to do with the rest, as they don't really seem to have common names... FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. All of my concerns have been handily addressed by the two nominators, the article seems quite polished, and is similar in depth and breadth to other Featured Articles on dinosaurs. Well done, gentlemen. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by karanacs Thank you! My standing with my son will go way up now that I can talk about this dino he doesn't know about yet.

Cool, and should go even further now you helped improve this article... FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Some points:

• "of the currently only species" - I read that three times and don't understand what it is saying. Does it mean "currently the sole species"

Changed after comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is it important to note what sizes were extrapolated from the incomplete holotype - isn't that information out of date now? If it needs to be kept, I would move it down to the history of discovery section

It is outdated, but I think the text makes that pretty clear, especially since it comes after the current estimates. "History of discovery" is mainly for fossil discoveries and its context. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But if it is outdated, why does it even need to be in the article? I write a lot of history topics, and for the most part I exclude information that has since been debunked (unless it is something really well-known and needs to be explicitly mentioned as being false). Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know most of the terms in the second paragraph of description, except for ulna, radius, and humerus, which were the only ones defined. Would it be difficult to summarize the other linked terms in 2-3 words? Or to find an image that labelled all of those?

I assume you mean words like Scapulocoracoid, ceratobranchial, and metacarpus? To be honest, I don't know of any common terms to explain these. Perhaps we could add such terms (with pointers) to the diagram under classification (which also mentions several anatomical terms), IJReid? Like this image:[4] Perhaps also add such to the "sail" diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Added, under a new name so that the other can remain as multilingual. I haven't been able to find any sources yet for where the ceratobranchial or furcula would be, but will add them when I find some. The sail diagram will come next as the terms for it are more complex. Do you know how to add a straight line in photoshop FunkMonk? IJReid ^discuss 00:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, there are varous ways to do it. First, if you hold down shift while drawing, your lines get straight. Then there's also something called the "line tool", which you pick by right clicking on the button that has the rectangle tool and other tools. These two are probably the most obvious ones. I preferred the old image though, without the black and grey spots... FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The image you've added to the article is very helpful!!! The only problem is its location. It's way down the page after the scary terms. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Placed the images a bit differently, which also made room for a photo of the Okavango Delta under palaeoecology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any development on the captions, Reid? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Labelled the vertebrae diagram, I presume that is what you mean by captions. IJReid ^discuss 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Did you figure out the straight lines? May be a bit puzzling without them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Straight lines are done, are they a bit too numerous? IJReid ^discuss 14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the amount is ok, IJReid, you could just move the text and lines a bit away form the drawing so they don't touch/overlap it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• 2012 in paleontology is linked, but 2013 is not. Both years are mentioned in the context of announcing new specimens, so link both or neither

Removed, except for in the taxobox. Seems a bit much for every year. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I actually know what a gastrolith is because my kid makes me read so many books on dinosaurs, but I have a feeling most readers won't understand that. Another sentence in that paragraphy, explaining what they ae/what they are used for, would help.

Added (stomach stones). The text currently says "supports the theory that these gastroliths helped the toothless animals in grinding their food", isn't that enough for explanation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what facultative herbivory means

Added (optional). FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing keeping me from supporting right now is the outdated estimates on the creature's size. If there's consensus that the info needs to remain, I can be swayed to strike that. Gug01, Dudley Miles, Firsfron of Ronchester, would you mind weighing in on that with your opinion? Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing is, we have "outdated" info under classification and diet as well (while clearly explaining these are not the current theories), and it is important to note these issues, and in the context they belong (not in the history sections, which are about circumstantial issues, such as fossil discoveries themselves). This is also how it's done in other dinosaur FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Karanacs, but I think the outdated size estimates are useful, here, as a background to the history of scientific knowledge of the animal. It would be less comprehensive without that info, in my opinion. It's possible that the outdated info could be moved into its own section, as an alternative. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Casliber (GA reviewer) would like to weigh in as well. I'll come clean and say I'm firmly against removing the info, and don't think it should be moved to another section, away from its proper context, per other dinosaur/palaeontology FAC precedents. I don't think anyone is mislead, since it is clearly explained as outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer they were left in too. Part of the fascination and interest with paleontology is the estimates scientists have to make from fragmentary remains, both of dimensions and characteristics, and this critter has been interesting WRT the speculation regarding these - it is an integral part of teh story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I as well firmly believe that this info should be kept. Interested users should be able to know how close or far off scientists were with estimating the size and weight of Deinocheirus and how it compares with the data now that almost the entire skeleton is known. IJReid ^discuss 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any further observations on this, Karanacs? It is probably good to take a look at other dinosaur FACs as precedents. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I forgot to come back last week. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as well! IJReid ^discuss 14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN14 returns 404 error

Removed ref and info until another link can be found. IJReid ^discuss 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the contact website for hiring the exhibit that features the holotype arms, so though it is a pretty low quality website, it is the only source that provides the relevant information, remember archive.com can always be used when a link dies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Very broad page ranges - in some instances in the order of hundreds of pages - are not useful for verification purposes. Can we include more specific pagination?

Done.

• Books should not link to Amazon, per Template:Cite_book#URL - these links are included on the ISBN page

Removed

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Might want to ping FunkMonk. IJReid ^discuss 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It was the first website to publish photos of the finds. It is some sort of "official" Mongolian website. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• New Scientist should be italicized

Done. IJReid ^discuss 17:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• FN18, 28: edition is not part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. IJReid ^discuss 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.