Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mimodactylus/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) 12 October 2023 [1].

Mimodactylus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a fossil species from Lebanon, where significant palaeontological discoveries are increasingly being made. As it's a relatively recently named animal, most of what has been published about it is covered here, and the images are mainly from the scientific paper that described it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Carpopenaeus species shrimp, Hjoula Lebanon.jpg Uploader has a history of cv, what is the evidence they took this photograph? (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence of copyright violations as such, only missing OTRS permission and deletions of multiple versions of a single image (of Karl Widerquist) for that reason. Either way, this image should be easy to replace if deemed a copyright violation and deleted, but at least a Google image search doesn't turn up duplicates. FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger edit

  • A few general comments: I'm iffy about the YouTube video in external links. And can you please add the species to the taxonbar as well as the genus?
There isn't a Wikidata entry for the species as far as I can see, so no taxonbar to add (I don't know the process that creates such a site, but I don't think it has bearing on FAC). As for the video, it has an interview with the director of the museum talking about the specimen and how he came up with the name 14:47 in, so I think it's quite relevant. I could mention that time stamp in the description? Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it MIM or Mim Museum? Both are used in the lede, which is mildly confusing.
Good point, changed to MIM throughout. Strangely, the article about the museum itself is at Mim Museum (maybe I'll move it)... FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skeleton is distinct in that the deltopectoral crest ... and in that the humerus is less than half the length of the wing-finger's second phalanx bone.
Removed second "in". FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lebanon was submerged in the Neotethys ocean at the time, wherethough some small islands were exposed.
The source doesn't specify whether these islands represent Lebanon itself, which "though" would imply. For all we know, Lebanon itself could have been entirely submerged. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of article later today or tomorrow. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait! Continuing through the History of discovery section...

  • Information about Mesozoic fossils of the Afro-Arabian continent (wherein the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time, also known as the Arabo-African palaeocontinent) is generally very limited, with only South Africa having been systematically studied. Could you shorten that to ...Mesozoic fossils of the Afro-Arabian palaeocontinent (the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time)..., as just calling it a continent right off the bat is a bit confusing. And .. with only those of South Africa having been systematically studied.
Problem here is that "Afro-Arabian continent" is what the main source calls it, and "Afro-Arabian palaeocontinent" is what another source calls it, so I don't think we can just choose the other term out of convenience. This seems to be an understudied field, which is probably also why the continent doesn't have an article, but also means there may not be a consensus on naming, and picking one isn't up to us. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ThereafterAfterwards, the owner of the quarry sold the specimen, but aroundin 2016, after years of negotiating, the buyer donated it to the MIM Museum, part of Saint Joseph University of Beirut. and add a comma after 2016. The asides in parentheses, while informative, make the sentence read too long and too broken up. Right after this sentence is where I would recommend noting that the anonymous donor wished for the fossil to stay in Lebanon.
Can't be more specific than the source; all we know is that the fossil was sent to Lebanon shortly before the cited article was published, which was in 2016, so anything more specific than that is interpretation (likewise with the year the fossil was found). Changed "thereafter" to "subsequently", and removed the parenthesis about the oldest university, to avoid two parentheses in one sentence. But explaining the name of the museum is essential for context, especially since its what the genus is named after. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the generic name refers to the MIM Museum, in recognition of where the holotype specimen (on which the scientific name is based) is housed and the wishes of the anonymous philanthropist who acquired the specimen so it could be kept in Lebanon, combined with the Greek word daktylos (δάκτυλος) for "digit". Overall, this sentence is too long. I would suggest shortening part to "refers to the MIM Museum, where the the holotype specimen is housed, combined with the Greek word..." The fact that the donor wanted to the specimen to be kept in Lebanon should be mentioned when discussing the sale and donation.
I shook it up a bit more, moved some of the info up, but due to how it is worded in the source, it can't be entirely divided. I moved the first mention of the term holotype lower so that the explanation of the term would be less intrusive. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement on both what was there and what I suggested. Well done! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite those specimens being less complete,... suggest changing to While these specimens are less complete,...
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...from the coeval Hakel Lagerstätte,... What does coeval mean?
Changed to "of the same age". FunkMonk (talk)

And skipping down to Classification:

  • The first paragraph is two run-on sentences. I recommend breaking it up to more sentences; the second in particular is unwieldy. I.e. In their 2019 phylogenetic analysis, Kellner and colleagues found Mimodactylus to be most closely related to Haopterus (a genus from China previously classified in various groups). The two [consistently?] formed a clade within the group Lanceodontia, for which they coined the name Mimodactylidae. And for the second sentence, please be clear that that is how the researchers described the mimodactylids. Also, "widely spaced teeth confided to the front half of the jaws"? Or should that be confined?
Split first sentence. Changed start of second sentence to "These researchers characterised mimodactylids by", and yes, it was meant to be "confined". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to Palaeobiology:

  • As the dentition of Mimodactylus differs from all of these, Kellner and colleagues suggested in 2019 that it probably had different feeding habits. It's already given as a suggestion, the probably is redundant.
To suggest something doesn't indicate what one thinks of the probability, so the qualifier is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insectivorous species often have slim teeth that can more easily process arthropods, and among pterosaurs, anurognathids are thought to be adapted for this with their well-spaced, isodont (of equal length) teeth. This sentence, paired with the following sentence, I find a bit confusing and disjointed- it feels like an unconnected aside even though I realize its relevant after giving it a few minutes' thought. Do you refer to insectivorous pterosaurs or modern species? What do you mean by process arthropods (penetrate the shell?) Why the sudden call out to anurognathids- aren't we talking about mimodactylids at least? While Mimodactylus had wider teeth, they may otherwise have fit this mode of feeding by being able to break down the exoskeletons of arthropods. is even worse- break down the exoskeletons how?
Anurognathids are mentioned because, as the text says, they "are thought to be adapted for this with their well-spaced, isodont (of equal length) teeth", which then becomes what Mimodactylus's teeth can be compared to ("While Mimodactylus had wider teeth, they may otherwise have fit this mode of feeding by being able to break down the exoskeletons of arthropods"). The first paragraph only discusses pterosaurs, while the second discusses extant vertebrates, which seems pretty clearly split to me? The source unfortunately doesn't go more into specifics as to how the exoskeletons were "broken down", but we can assume they mean prepared for consumption/grabbed, which seems pretty straightforward to me, but we can't be clearer than the source itself if it means too much interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extant vertebrate animals that aerially feed on insects have... Technically correct, but I suggest that Extant animals that hunt insects while flying have... is more easily understood by the average idiot. The qualifier of vertebrate is redundant here, as the only animals that fly around feeding on insects are all vertebrates, and I suggest removing it to be less jargon-y.
Off the top of my head, dragonflies hunt while flying, and robber flies do too, as I'm sure some other insects do, so that qualifier is needed. I don't think "aerial" is a particularly technical word, most people are aware of terms like "aerodynamic" or "aerospace", but replaced anyway to get away from the wording in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I forgot about dragonflies. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ability to manoeuvre during flight appears to have been limited in Mimodactylus as in open-sea fliers, and it was probably highly stable when flying, like albatrosses and some other birds. I suggest changing to: Mimodactylus appears to have had limited maneuverability and high stability during flight, similar to albatrosses and other open-sea flying birds.
I'm not sure the two statements are lumpable like that, though. While we can assume open-sea fliers equates albatrosses and the other birds, the source doesn't make clear that these limitations apply to those groups specifically. It only says: "In Mimodactylus, as open-sea flyers, the ability to maneuver during flight appears to be limited and it was likely high stable during flight as observed in albatrosses and other birds (Fig. 5)." FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of clarity is irritating, then, but beyond our power to correct. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such dynamic soaring (flying with little flapping) may also have been the mode of flying of large pterosaurs such as anhanguerians, istiodactylids and pteranodontians. This does not entirely feel relevant to an article about Mimodactylus, especially with how separates two sentences specifically about the subject.
Again, context and comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kellner and colleagues therefore suggested that instead of being insectivorous, Mimodactylus and its relatives may have foraged for decapod crustaceans on water surfaces, similar to how some albatrosses feed on types of shrimp. "on water surfaces" - I think you mean from the surface of the ocean/sea? But that phrasing feels clunky. And yes, while the researchers may have specified decapods crustaceans, here it reads like extra big words.
Changed to "from" water surfaces, the source says "on" though. But the source makes a point out of specifying the type of crustacean; decapods are named because that's one type that is frequently found there, so I see no good reason to be vague for the sake of it, doesn't really help anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit worried about too many big words, but at a second look, decapods isn't that bad. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broad rostrum and spaced, relatively robust and pointed teeth of Mimodactylus would have been helpful for seizing shrimp in the water. What kind of spaced?
Added "widely", as the source says elsewhere, but this part just says "In addition, a broad rostrum60 and spaced but relatively robust and pointed teeth61,62 could be good tools to seize shrimps in the water." FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects had not been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon by the time Mimodactylus was described, and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula, which indicated to Kellner and colleagues that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away. => When Mimodactylus was described, no insects had been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula, which indicates that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away.
I tried splitting up the sentence instead: "Insects had not been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon by the time Mimodactylus was described, and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula. This indicated to Kellner and colleagues that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away." FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two fossil dragonfly species from Lebanon (including Libanoliupanshania mimi, also named for the MIM Museum) were Another aside in parentheses that honestly feels more tangential than relevant.
It's context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I question how naming just the one dragonfly is context. Wouldn't it be better to say (Libanoliupanshania mimi and <second dragonfly>)? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's because one of them has a name that is of interest in sharing part of the name with the subject of the article, the other doesn't, and both are listed under palaeoenvironment anyway. It's tangential, yes, but I prefer parenthesis over footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as is also the case in Jurassic outcrops of Bavaria, where dragonflies are more frequent than other insects) Fun fact. But not relevant to this pterosaur.
It's relevant as it's part of the argument for why it may not have lived as far from land as initially suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after rereading it again, I can see the relevance. But I would recommend minor rephrasing to (as is also the case in Jurassic outcrops of Bavaria, where dragonflies are more frequently collected than other insects) since the whole sentence is making that distinction between present vs collected (and thus, more frequent vs more frequently collected). --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was how I wanted to say it initially, but the source doesn't say "collected/found" or anything like that. But I think we can be pretty sure what is meant, so used your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mimodactylus is known from the Sannine Formation in Hjoula, Lebanon, dating fromwhich is dated to the late Cenomanian age of the Late Cretaceous, about 95 million years ago.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This age has been determined based on biostratigraphy, by comparing with fossils from localities elsewhere in the world whose dates are known. and The limestone of Hajoula is compact, soft, and laminated rock, which is characterised by being light yellow or grey-yellow in colour, and in not having flint nodules. These are fun facts, but they don't feel relevant to the discussion of Mimodactylus' environment.
Such information is present in pretty much all featured paleo article, and I doubt anyone would consider them "fun", lol. They're there to establish geological context, and context/comprehensiveness are important FAC criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are the kind of observations on which the paleoenvironmental reconstruction is based on. They are relevant and important imo. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. I made some minor changes to the wording of the first sentence. "submerged on a platform", as a phrase though, feels strange. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the source puts it, though: "During the mid Cenomanian, Lebanon was mostly submerged and positioned on a shallow carbonate platform" FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and indicates a climate similar to that of the current day Mediterranean region. Which would just be a mediterranean climate. "and indicates a mediterranean climate."
I'm not sure about that, the map in that article doesn't even show the entire Mediterranean as having a "Mediterranean climate", and the source specifies the region, not a type of climate. A bit too much interpretation, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I assumed it would be referring to a Mediterranean-type climate rather than a direct (and imprecise) comparison. Shows what I know. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could very well be right, problem is that the source doesn't specify. There are some parts of the description paper that are written pretty messily in general... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a good article, but I notice that you tend to include a bunch of little asides and fun facts that just aren't all that relevant, and your sentences tend to run a little long. These aren't fail-worthy, but I do not think they will help most people comprehend what they are reading. Especially for jargon-heavy science articles. Concision is a virtue, so stay focused on the point of the sentence and paragraph. What are you trying to explain? How is each word going to help you reach that goal? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest should be answered now. Well, I disagree that most of these are "fun facts", as they would hardly be considered "fun" by anyone, but are mostly for establishing context and comprehensiveness, which are two of the FA criteria. Some of them are tangential, yes, but a little extra info never hurt anyone, this isn't limited paper after all, and whether it's incorporated in the main text in parenthesis or as a footnote doesn't make much of a difference, but I prefer the former. Perhaps more reviewers will find some of these too tangential (I removed a bit), but I will wait until that happens before considering removing others. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the rest of my nitpicks answered (in retrospect, I was likely unnecessarily crabby thanks to a bad headache during the second part, my apologies), I am pleased to Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, while they can take time to answer, I like challenging reviews, as they force you to reconsider what you've written and how, and while perhaps not all of it will be actionable, good stuff can come out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "The skeleton is distinct in that": when I read this I thought "distinct from what?" but I think perhaps it should be "distinctive", meaning that it is distinct from other known fossil species of pterosaur?
    Added distinctive twice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lebanon was submerged in the Neotethys ocean at the time, where some small islands were exposed." Suggest "but some" instead of "where".
    Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never explicitly give the date of discovery, so I assume it's not known exactly, but you do say "more than fifteen years" before 2019. Can we say something like "no later than 2004" in the first sentence of the body? Or else give the date of the scientific description and let the reader do the not-very-challenging arithmetic.
    The 2019 source says nothing other than "fifteen years ago", so I'm wary of being any more specific than that and interpreting too much. Tried with "more than fifteen years before its 2019 scientific description." FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter, the owner of the quarry sold the specimen, but around 2016 after years of negotiating,": suggest using "subsequently" or a synonym instead of "thereafter", which tends to refer to a subsequent ongoing state, rather than a specific one-time event such as a sale. I would also either cut the comma after "negotiating" or add one before "but", as those should be a parenthetical pair.
    Changed to "subsequently" and removed comma after "negotiating". FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and being sort of like": a bit informal -- suggest "and being rather like".
    Right, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kind of dentition Mimodactylus has is similar to": suggest "Mimodactylus's dentition is similar to".
    Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature otherwise seen in other pterosaurs": what does "otherwise" add?
    Changed to "a feature present in other pterosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The combination of its various anatomical features also distinguishes Mimodactylus from other ornithocheiroids." Seems vague; as written this covers everything about it. We've listed specific differences -- what does this tell us beyond that?
    This is just to say that these other features aren't distinctive each in themselves, only by the exact combination of them together in this genus. I tried to underline it by saying "exact combination", but I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were described by the Lebanese palaeontologist Dany Azar and colleagues in 2019, who also mentioned a fossil beetle": needs rephrasing; since these palaeontologists are the indirect rather than direct object of "described" they can't be referred to with "who", and the year confuses the referent further.
Changed to "The first two fossil dragonfly species from Lebanon (including Libanoliupanshania mimi, also named for the MIM Museum) and a beetle were reported by the Lebanese palaeontologist Dany Azar and colleagues in 2019". FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • The link to the source in cite 2 is dead.
Ugh, added archive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Garassino article in English? Similarly Capasso et al?
Yes, they have both English and Italian abstracts, but the articles themselves are in English. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known specimen was discovered in a limestone quarry near the town of Hjoula. " Is it known when?
Only that it was more than 15 years before it was described, so I can only say it indirectly and vaguely. Here's what the article body says "more than fifteen years before its 2019 scientific description". FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "the Afro-Arabian continent"? Could it be defined in line.
Added in parenthesis to intro. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deltopectoral crest" needs linking or defining.
Explained in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly by foraging". Perhaps → 'possibly it foraged'?
Tried with your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: I think that you need to explain why/how the degree of bone fusion helps age a specimen, possibly in a footnote.
Tried with "(some bones of vertebrate animals fuse at different rates as they age)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not rounded as in Istiodactylus". "Istiodactylus" comes a bit out of nowhere. Could it be introduced?
Perhaps too convoluted, but tried with "and not rounded as in the istiodactylid Istiodactylus, and also differs from other istiodactyliforms, the group they both belonged to." FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is a disambig page, so piped to scalpel. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that an understanding is needed to follow the article - I found it difficult to just gloss over it and keep reading - could there be an in line explanation of "phalanx"?
It's "just" the finger-bones, so as it now says "wing-finger's second phalanx bone" and "the first two phalanx bones of the wing-finger", I'm unsure how to add anything without it being redundant? Finger-bones of the wing-finger? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. I am not really happy, but I can see the argument that what you have is the least bad option.
  • "the position of the pteroid in pterosaurs has been a point of contention among researchers". "has" or 'had'?
Is there a difference in this context? Anyway, changed to "had". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it was an open question. "had" suggests that it no longer is.
  • "the supercontinent of Gondwana (which consisted of Africa and South America)". Just those two?
Right, was copied from another article with a different context, made it less specific by saying "known from Gondwana (the southern supercontinent which included Africa and Arabia)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Hjoula is known for its well-preserved fish fossils, various other organisms are known from there." Picky, but is it possible to avoid using "known" twice in the sentence?
Tried with "various other organisms have been found there". FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, issues should now be addressed, Gog the Mild. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "the Afro-Arabian continent (wherein the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time). I am not sure what "wherein" means here. I would delete in the lead and the main text.
Would seem it would have to be rephrased, as just removing the word would break the rest of the sentence. How about something like "which consisted of the then joined Arabian Peninsula and Africa"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed but is a clade an unofficial taxonomic rank?
It's the consequence of Linnean rank-based taxonomy being increasingly seen as obsolete; many modern taxonomists don't use terms like "family", "subfamily", "tribe", so on, as they are pretty much arbitrary. A clade is just a grouping as you can see in a cladogram, which is not necessarily given a rank or even a name. But if a clade is named without being given a rank, it is still official if it has been registered by the relevant authorities (such as Zoobank). FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed the continent definition. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Formatting:
    • fn 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 ISSN?
    • fn 7 points to a map of the MIM museum, but I'm not sure what that is supposed to tell us
      If you click on "pterosaur area", the cited text can be found there. But there is no way to make a direct link because it's some sort of Flash-like dynamic site. Any ideas, perhaps indicate in the citation text where to click? I tried by renaming the title "Interactive map of MIM - Pterosaur Area". FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 11 should be David W. E. Hone and the volume 26 issue 1
      Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 18, 21, 22: page numbers? (should be pp. 155-160, 395-452)
      Not sure how I missed those, added, but 22 does have a page (5). FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 5, 19, 20, 23 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi FM, did you mean for the last sets of citations in History of discovery and Paleoenvironment to be out of chronological order? No prob if so, I know some like to relate the citation order to the sequence of clauses in the preceding statement/s, but just in case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually place them in order of importance to the sentence/how much they're used to cite the sentence, if that makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, as long as there's a method to the madness -- last I looked MOS doesn't require an particular order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2023 (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/Mimodactylus/archive1&oldid=1179870643"