Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nigersaurus/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 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nigersaurus edit

Nigersaurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though this dinosaur was named relatively recently, it has become rather famous, and several scientific papers have been devoted to it. We have added most information available about the dinosaur, as well as many interesting images. The dinosaur project has long been silent here at FAC (only one dinosaur featured since 2009), but that'll hopefully change soon, starting with this and Dromaeosauroides. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey edit

Warning: my paleontological knowledge is limited to what I learned in primary school. Feel free to disagree with anything—some of the following are merely my preferences.

  • Can we get some alt text for the images?
done
Lead edit
  • "reptile", "dinosaur", and "subfamily" (x2) don't need to be linked (WP:OVERLINK), especially since they obscure what is being linked by having so many links bump up against each other
I only found subfamily to be ovelinked. done
I think you're confusing overlinking with duplinking. Overlinking is linking common words. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it. done
  • "4 tonnes": we have a conversion for metres, but not tonnes?
Done
  • "with many fenestrae": What is "fenestrae"?
Explained
  • "The jaws may have bore": "born"
done
  • "and all its teeth were located far to the front": you can drop "all"
done
  • "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped, but the brain size was comparable to that of other dinosaurs": what is being contrasted here?
done
Sorry, I wasn't clear—I meant the "but" is unnecessary, as the sense of smell is not being contrasted to the brain size. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was. I find it makes sense that way. I think FunkMonk's saying "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped even though its brain was a comparable size to other dinosaurs." Iainstein (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, sense of smell is related to brain size? Which is why humans have such a higher developed sense of small than, say, dogs? again, I'm a lay reader, and the contrast seems random to me—if sense of smell is related to brain size, then this needs to be made clear. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Its sense of smell was underdeveloped for a dinosaur even though its brain was a comparable size to other dinosaurs." Iainstein (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the area in the brain that is responsible for smell that is very small, that's why there's a contrast, but it doesn't have to be contrasted here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "There has been debate ... but this is contested,": I think we can assume it has been contested if there has been debate.
done
  • "shared its habitat with other dinosaurian megaherbivore,": does the plural of "megaherbivore" not take an "s"?
done
Description edit
I'm pretty sure this can be evaluated on a case by case basis, here it doesn't make sense on the right (taxobox in the way), I've never had problems with that before in 10+ FAs. And I never liked that guideline, I'll see if I can lobby for its removal! Seems like I'm not the only one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a sauropod; with a body": change semicolon to comma
done
  • "4 tonnes": again, conversion for metres but not tonnes
done
  • "Nearly all rebbachisaurids": this is the first mention of "rebbachisaurids" in the body (rather than lead), so it should be linked
done
  • "often being only several millimetres thick.": you can safely drop "being"
done
  • "only", "merely", etc: are these necessary?
done
  • "the length of back legs,": "the back legs"
done
  • "as in most diplodocoids.": first mention of "diplodocoids" in the body, so should be linked
done
  • "robustly built": I'd prefer just "robust"
done
  • "The skull of Nigersaurus was delicately built": ditto, I'd prefer just "delicate"
done
  • "Another unique trait, it had among sauropodomorphs": drop the comma
done
  • "shearing of the teeth": I wonder if there's something ot link to here
I couldn't find anything. Iainstein (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been 20-30% smaller": need an endash (MOS:ENDASH)
done
  • "being ten times thicker on the outwards facing side.": I think you can drop "being"
done
  • "otherwise only known": I think "otherwise known only" might be better
done
History of discovery edit
  • I might shorten the header to "Discovery"
Well,, it's a convention of sorts in other dino FAs, so that's why I kept it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remains now thought to belong": I think "now" is unnecessary
done
  • "of several other individuals": I think "several" is unnecessary
done
  • "disarticulation": is there something to link to here? If not, is there a way to phrase this for a lay reader?
Well, articulation is when the skeleton is still more or less connected, but that word doesn't really cover the meaning well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no complete skulls and articulated skeletons": "no complete skulls or articulated skeletons"
done
  • "Nigersaurus was only named and described in more detail by Sereno and colleagues in 1999": I'd move "only" to before "in 1999"
done
  • "of newly found individuals.": "newly-found"
done
  • "A scapula and limb material": I'd reword "Limb material and a scapula", not because it's incorrect, but because I initially read the "a" as applying to both nouns, thus (mentally) "A scapula and a limb material"
done
  • "was dubbed a 'Mesozoic cow'": those should be double quotes, no?
I don't think so. Iainstein (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually fairly certain. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "A lower jaw referred to the titanosaur Antarctosaurus": I'm not sure what "referred to" means here
It means assigned to.
Yup, it is a convention within taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it hurt to reword it so as not to leave lay readers like myself scratching our heads? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand it perfectly well. edit this page to see hidden info. Iainstein (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a 36-year-old grownup, and it confused me. Of course, I would expect the author to understand it, especially if they are a subject expert. Not knowing the expert terminology, if theis weren't an FA, I likely would have "corrected" it to something that follows standard lay usage (one doesn't normally think of things like lower jaws referring to things, unless those jaws happen to be in the act of speaking). In other words, to a lay reader it appears to be a typo. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
Classification edit
  • "is the basalmost family&nbsp... as a basal": move the link to "basalmost"
done
done
done
  • "Federico Fanti and colleagues, 2013,": in running text, I think the "2013" should be in parentheses
done
  • "The closely related genus": "closely-related"
done
  • "was described 2003": "in 2003"?
done
  • "that span across the Cretaceous of Africa and Europe": "across" is redundant
done
done
Palaeobiology edit
Likewise as above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the rationale at WP:IMAGELOCATION? It's not for aesthetic reasons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a highly contentious line (see above), and it will probably be removed soon. The rationale is flawed, in my opinion, and see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I remember watching that discussion as it unfolded. I also seem to remember certain of the participants had less-than-congenial things to say in other discussions about those with disabilities ... regardless, I do not intend to take a hard line, as long as you are aware of the guideline yet still feel your position ... "justified". ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within one meter or less": what brand of English is being used? Should this be "metre", as "tonne" is being used?
UK. We were two guys writing this, so I guess that's the reason! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(externally facing)": "externally-facing" (or "external-facing"?)
done
"A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb", per WP:Hyphen (ditto for some other examples above). Sasata (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "It also bares signs": "bears"
done
  • "low angle tooth-to-tooth wear": "low-angle"
done
  • "faster than other dinosaurian herbivore": "herbivores"?
done
  • "with each tooth being replaced once every 14 days.": see WP:PLUSING (not that I fully understand it)
Then please tells us what to do about it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "and each tooth was replaced once every 14 day."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "brain to body-mass": " brain-to-body mass"
done
  • "limited the up and downwards movement": "up- and downwards"
done
  • "oriented 67°": drop the link
done
  • "close to the ground level": I think the "the" is unnecessary
done
  • "been restored; with their": change semicolon to colon
done
  • "contested that this would have been the habitual posture": "contested that this was the habitual posture"
done
Palaeoecology edit
  • "The Elrhaz Formation mainly consists": I'd prefer "consists mainly"
done
  • "coarse to medium grained": "coarse- medium-grained"
how about "coarse to medium-grained". Iainstein (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on whether you meant "coarse-grained" to "medium-grained" or not. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant coarse-grained to medium-grained. Iainstein (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then as I suggested. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "fine grained horizons": "fine-grained"
done
  • "mid Cretaceous": "mid-Cretaceous"
Done
  • "Aptian-Albian age": Is this a time span, or a single age? If a span, then we need an endash, and "ages"
done
  • "and a yet unnamed": "yet-unnamed"
done
Bonus points that will not affect this article's FA eligibility in any way edit
  • It would be nice to have a {{Portal|Dinosaurs|Niger|Paleontology}} thrown in there.
Added {{Portal|Dinosaurs|Niger}}. Iainstein (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review! We should be able to grind through these within the day. And it is quite alright that you're not a palaeontology buff, I think improvement of wording is just as important for us, since we're not really copyedit-kinda-guys. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. As far as I can see, these guys have dealt with all my concerns appropriately. You might want to remove those {{done}} tmeplates, those, as per the guidelines at the top of the FAC page: "The use of graphics or templates is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives." Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell edit

Resolved issues
  • I don't know much about skeletal pneumaticity, but when you say "Its skeleton was highly pneumatised and hollow", is there a meaningful difference between the adjectives? If "hollow" simply restates "pneumatised" for the lay reader, I would reword as "highly pneumatised, or hollow,".
"Filled with air" would probably be a better explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence should be reworded a bit: "There has been debate on whether its head was habitually held downwards, based on reconstructions of the skull, and that it likely held its head like other sauropods." Do you mean "or whether it", instead of "and that it"?
Fixed
Still not right. The error becomes clear when you imaging replacing the complex clauses with simpler ones. Consider: "There has been debate on whether [it walked], or that [it ran]". The "that" isn't grammatically correct. – Quadell (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great lead, by the way.
  • It looks like there is a grammatical error in "The vertebral arches were 2 mm (0.079 in) intersecting laminae", but I'm not sure, since the articles on Vertebral arch and Lamina of the vertebral arch are not very clear. Should this be "2 mm of intersecting laminae" or "2 mm long, made up of intersecting laminae", or what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source states "No other herbivorous tetrapod has evolved a skull of comparable size with as little bone that is able to withstand sustained impact from tooth-to-tooth shearing." This article states "No other known herbivorous tetrapod has a skull of comparable size with as little bone and the ability to resist the impact of sustained shearing of the teeth." I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of rewording such a specific claim, but I think you'll have to find a way to get a little further from the source's wording. (Your rewording is fully sufficient for the article's other sentences that come from that source.)
Yeah, that was a tough one. How about now? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed a little further. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Due to the lack of sources in the Wiki article, I'd think the name used in the paper is more apporpriate. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rd fixes it, and can be changed in the unlikely event that evidence shows it to be a different museum. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "The sediments are coarse- medium-grained", do you mean "The sediments are coarse- to medium-grained", or "The sediments are coarse, medium-grained"? – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. "Course- to medium-grained". Iainstein (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletals in Sereno papers are all made by the same woman (Carol Abraczinskas), I think she's credited in the paper, I'll have a look. As for "Arthur Weasley", he's the same user as Nobu Tamura (his real name I believe, he uses it on Facebook), but he left Wikipedia a while back, though he was previously a regular at the dino project. The anatomical errors in the image were fixed by myself. He has made many images of the same animals, but he started out at Wikipedia years ago, before he made his own site. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a double-fullstop in reference 2 at "Wilson, J.A.."
I checked and it was "Wilson, J.A.;". Iainstein (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant later in the ref, at "In Curry Rogers, K., and Wilson, J.A.." – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Got it.
  • Since Taquet's book is in French, the reference should say so.
Added.
  • The first paragraph of "Description" seems to assume a knowledge of sauropod anatomy. It starts with how a Nigersaurus is different from a typical sauropod. For instance, the text says it "had a comparably short neck", but it was short compared to other rebbachisaurids, and it certainly wasn't short compared to most vertebrates; the comparison with other sauropods is implied, but not stated. I'm not sure the best way to fix it; you could either rewrite the paragraph to introduce the Nigersaurus' appearance to someone who was not already familiar with sauropod anatomy, or you could include a quick description of typical sauropod anatomy somehow.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like the "Description" section should start with at least a sentence describing Nigersaurus in the most basic way, saying what it has in common with other sauropods, before contrasting Nigersaurus with other sauropods. Consider something like this. "Like all sauropods, Nigersaurus was a megafaunal quadruped with a small head, thick hind legs, and a prominent tail." (There may be a better wording, but that demonstrates what I mean.) That can probably be covered by the Sereno et al cite, or there are plenty of others at the sauropods article. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something went wrong there, but I fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "within one metre or less", the "or less" is redundant. I'm not sure the most accurate way to rephrase it, but it should be rephrased.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I tweaked. It's good now. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider: "Its brain-to-body-mass volume was average size"... Are we comparing its mass, its volume, or its size?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I tweaked, removing "size". It's good now. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made several bold changes to the "Head posture" section. For instance, the holotype specimen is by definition a single specimen, so I reduced the redundancy. I removed the word "traditionally", since it seemed to imply that tradition is a reason other sauropods were oriented differently. Et cetera. If you disagree with any of these, please, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a reference starts with "d’Emic", it should be capitalized.
Done. Had to correct Template:Cite doi/10.1371.2Fjournal.pone.0069235 to change got it but done. Iainstein (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something wrong with the retrieved date of "19-16-2007" in reference #8. Also, other dates in the references are formatted YYYY-MM-DD.
I think I fixed it, although how can it be the 16th month? Iainstein (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that must be a typo. Since it's just a retrieved date, you could fix it by checking that the link still contains all the material sourced to it, and then change the date to today's date. – Quadell (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • This article uses the serial comma in some places (e.g. "skull, jaw, dental battery, and brain" and "conifers, cycads, or aquatic vegetation"), but omits it in other places (e.g. "ferns, horsetails and angiosperms" and "Mike P. Taylor, Mathew Wedel and Darren Naish"). The "Palaeoecology" section in particular switches back and forth a lot. This should be consistent. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were two remaining places where serial commas were still missing. I added them. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of the issues I identified have been resolved. This article is complete and well-sourced, and fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

All image issues have been resolved. All image use is appropriate, as are all captions. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting check

All source issues have been resolved. No further problems. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - looking through (have read it on my smartphone once already) - looking good/queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only member of the group that reached the size of larger sauropods .... - I'd substitute "family" for group here (we're talking about the Rebbachisauridae, right?) as it is more exacting and less ambiguous.

Otherwise little to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) edit

  • ensure there is a non-breaking space in short-form binomials
done
  • as a monospecific genus, shouldn't the species name be bolded on first occurrence in the lead?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its skull was very specialised" specialised for what? Is "very" needed?
done
In this case, it is likely related to feeding, but it can mean any prominent feature that sets it apart from related species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link fenestrae
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had a shorter neck, with 13 cervical vertebrae." shorter than what, the elephant mentioned immediately previous?
You misread. It states "It had a short neck for a sauropod, with 13 cervical vertebrae". LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was actually my change. (I was hoping to avoid to many "compared to other sauropods" constructions.) I've now fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link septum
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 mm (0.079 in) -> too many sig figs (another instance later)
done. Iainstein (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The limbs were robust, as seen in other sauropods," suggest "Like other sauropods, its limbs were robust,"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were not as specialised as the rest of the skeleton" again, not sure what specialised means in this context
  • "the front legs of Nigersaurus were 66% the length of the back legs" exactly 66%, or would "about two-thirds" suffice?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone." awkward construction
This seems to be a very problematic line in all the reviews. It consistently turns awkward when we try to reword it from the source. But couldn't we in theory just use the same wording, since the paper has a free, Wikipedia compatible license? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't use the same poor, confusing wording as the source just because we can; the article would then fail criterion 1a. I'm sure you guys can figure out a way to reword this elegantly :) Sasata (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original source, which is released under a cc-by license, states "No other herbivorous tetrapod has evolved a skull of comparable size with as little bone that is able to withstand sustained impact from tooth-to-tooth shearing." This article used to put it this way: "No other known herbivorous tetrapod has a skull of comparable size with as little bone and the ability to resist the impact of sustained shearing of the teeth." I asked that it be reworded, not because it was awkward, but because I thought it was maybe close paraphrasing. So they changed it to "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone.", which is admirably far from the source, but is more awkward. What's the best way of wording it? Should they just change it back to what it was before? Use a direct quote from the cc-by paper? I'm honestly not sure. What would you recommend, Sasata? – Quadell (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under each active tooth there was a column out of 9 replacement teeth within the jaw." confusin ... a "column made of 9 replacement teeth", or a "column of 9 replacement teeth"?; 9 -> nine
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth batteries erupt in unison" should be past tense, no? (this event is no longer occurring)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "newly-found individuals" do not hyphenate -ly adverbs
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "large scale palaeontological expeditions" in this case, a hyphen is needed!
Did. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link scapula, taxon, convergent evolution
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's standard practice to bold the article subject name in a cladogram
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then part of the Gondwana supercontinent." then->than ? (not sure; last clause of this sentence confuses me)
Then, as in back then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crop it very close to the ground"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Nigersaurus is estimated to have one of the weakest bites of the sauropods." have -> have had?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is non-coelurosaurian?
Linked coelurosaurian. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the basis of µCT" probably better to spell out the jargon word
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was supported by a 2013 study which suggested" which -> that
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with almost no fine-grained horizons." what's a horizon?
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page range for ref#2?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • update accessdate for ref#5, might be good to archive the link too
  • Taquet 1976 is available online
added
  • ref #8 needs publication date (archive would be good too)
Added new date, not sure about archiving. This? https://web.archive.org/web/20131012050244/http://www.ur.umich.edu/0708/Nov19_07/06.shtml FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work; now it goes in the "archive url" parameter. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None given. LittleJerry (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it would be 2007, it seems to be connected to the paper released that year. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the date in the URL. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page ranges and issue #'s for refs#11 & 13?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be addressed, awaiting further instructions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look fine, thanks. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and added link! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone edit

Very interesting piece. Seem to be more copyediting issues than i'd have expected. Support

  • In the lede: "It weighed around 4 tonnes (Bad rounding here4,000 kg)". First, something is clearly wrong with the underlying script that produced this, and it has been sitting there for a while. Any thoughts? Second, how come the weight is given conversion etc in the lede but not in the text?
Removed, don't think it was even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closed supratemporal opening". The idea of an opening being closed is pretty confusing, all the more so given that there is no wikilink to help the lay reader work out what this bit of the anatomy is.
Changed to fenestra, with link. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only known herbivorous tetrapod with a skull of its size that was resistant to the sustained shearing of the teeth while consisting of as little bone". What??
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under each active tooth there was a column out of nine replacement teeth within the jaw." I think the word "out" needs to be omitted.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these so-called dental batteries (also present in hadrosaurs and certopsians) comprise a total of more than 500 active and replacement teeth". Should this read "comprised", since the rest of the description is in the past tense? Then later we have "The jaws also contain several fenestrae,..." In fact, the tense used for description is all over the place. Need to pick one and stick to it.
Fixed, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth batteries erupted in unison, and not individually." I couldn't quite work out what this meant (also, the term, according to the previous sentence, is dental battery, not tooth battery). A whole battery behind one tooth cannot erupt in unison. Is this meant to say "The teeth from dental batteries erupted in unison, and not individually"?
  • This isn't great: "Therefore, no complete skulls or articulated skeletons are known. These fossils were the first known relatively complete remains of a rebbachisaurid sauropod". I realise "complete" is not exactly the same as "relatively complete" but it gives the impression of being contradictory.
How about "most complete" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that helps, sorry. Actually, most of this para is stilted and needs improvement. For example, the "this" in "This is because of the delicate..." strictly speaking reads as referring to why further discoveries were made, when it is about why specimens were poorly preserved. I might have a go myself... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had a go at fixing the first issues I saw in this para. The problem I can't fix is this sentence: "These fossils were the most complete remains of a rebbachisaurid sauropod known by that time". First of all, it is not clear which fossils are "these". Second, it is not clear by what time is meant. Third... I'm guessing the whole para may make more sense if this sentence is deleted. But maybe it is trying to make a point I am missing... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is pretty important, which is that it is the most completely known dinosaur (rebbachisaurid) of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, why not just say that? What is the significance of the past tense? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded, does it make more sense?FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not exactly. Look, the para talks about expeditions in 1997 and 2000. It then says "no complete skulls or articulated skeletons are known" (ie. present tense) and then says "...represented the most complete rebbachisaurid remains known by that time". So I still don't know what the time is to which we are referring, and I'm still unclear why the past tense is being used. Are you saying these are no longer the most complete remains? What displaced them? Should they not be mentioned? I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I still don't get this. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that with the pace new discoveries are made, it'll probably cease to be the most complete specimen ever, so I thought the safest would just be to make it relative. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but i don't think it is worth qualifying in that way. When writing about the Burj Khalifa, WP says it "is the tallest man-made structure in the world", without a qualifier, though I am sure the building will one day be superseded. I suggest this. Would that text adequately reflect the intent? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, yes,thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is further supported by facets on the labial (externally facing) side of the upper teeth, similar to Dicraeosaurus and Diplodocus, which is evidence..." I think if the article refers to facets plural, then it should read "which are evidence?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also bears signs of low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear..." What is the "it" here? The facets? Wasn't clear.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear on the inside of the maxillary crowns, which suggest that jaw movement..." Opposite problem from point two above: shouldn't this be suggests if the subject is "low-angle tooth-to-tooth wear"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the team concluded that the head and muzzle were habitually (how it is usually posed in life), and "neutrally" (posture inferred from biomechanic study), oriented 67° downwards, close to ground level, as an adaptation for ground-level browsing." Doesn't work - there's too much going on in this sentence, plus there's no citation at the end of the sentence for a word being presented as a quote. The second bracketed text reads as though written in note form; it is not clear what the conceptual distinction is between neutrally and habitually. It seems to me that what the article trying to say is that "Based on this biomechanical analysis, the team concluded that the head and muzzle were habitually oriented 67° downwards and close to ground level, as an adaptation for ground-level browsing". The subsequent discussion should still flow OK i think.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll get to these before soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it had large nostrils and a large, fleshy snout region, Nigersaurus had an underdeveloped olfactory region..." Repetition of both "large" and "region", which is also confusing, since the word "region" is being used in different senses here. How about "Though it had large nostrils and a fleshy snout, Nigersaurus had an underdeveloped olfactory region of its brain..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I'm done here. Nice work. Interesting beast! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (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/Nigersaurus/archive1&oldid=862815420"