Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rajasaurus/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 [1].

Rajasaurus edit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first theropod dinosaur discovered in India that had more than just skull pieces. That said, this is probably, if it passes, the shortest FA dinosaur article, and in all cases my first dinosaur article for FA, but length doesn't always equate to completeness. It's complete as far's I can tell, that's why it's here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lusotitan edit

I'll do a more in-depth check soon, but for now I'd like to see a bit longer of a lead if possible. I'd wager you should be able to squeeze two good paragraphs out of this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by IJReid edit

I'll add some in later, but there seems to be a little disconnect between what goes in what section. The first paragraph of Description doesn't contain any description, and the material found is listed in Description and not Discovery. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the dubious genus Lametasaurus described in 1923 may actually represent a stout Rajasaurus individual, specifically the hip remains," I can't understand this wording does it imply only the hips are Rajasaurus?
That's what it says, yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is still convoluted. Perhaps something like "Only the holotype specimen exists, although the hip bone remains of the dubious genus Lametasaurus, described in 1923 for [list material] from [location], might represent a stout individual of Rajasaurus. This cannot be confirmed as the Lametasaurus specimen has been lost." IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I really don't think the article is comprehensive or well-written enough, but I'm not really sure where to start without simply hard-opposing.
:/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the braincase, only the left sides of the parietal and frontal bones are preserved, though the opposite is true for the horn" I don't understand, the frontals and parietals aren't braincase bones, and the sentence "on the braincase," makes no sense when you consider this.
Are you sure the parietal is not part of the braincase? It seems to be one of the major bones that make up the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could but generally the frontoparietal is considered the skull roof while occipital bones are braincase.
The source described the frontals and parietals under a subheading "Braincase"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The horn" what horn?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the horn is significant enough it deserves more than a passing mention. Maybe reorder the paragraph so the remaining horn info directly follows?
I just split it off into its own paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the walls decreasing" what walls? decreasing in what?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The low horn on its forehead ..." a lot of repetition in the words horn and bone and has a lot of pauses (comma should be present before the "more than")
Well it does talk about bones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like with metatarsals, cutting off the bone is perfectly appropriate after first mention. Also, a comma is still needed
Done, and I don't see where the comma should go   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The right side of the orbitosphenoid bones is broken away, exposing, on the frontal bone near the midline, a path for the olfactory tract which is a part of smelling" this sentence bears very little relevance for inclusion apart from the mention of "for smelling"
Deleted the orbitosphenoid part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crista prootica needs a link or gloss
I defined what it was in the same sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording doesn't help laymen know the crista prootica is simply the prootic crest
I don't what either of those are, but I rearranged it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss otic capsule, orbitosphenoid, olfactory tract, sagittal crest etc
All of those are already wikilinked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are already explained in text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a bracketes phrase explanation would be helpful to those without the beta feature for page previews
I hate those page previews, there's no x button on them; all of those are already defined in text (like sagittal crest is "crest along the middle of the top of the skull")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything more of importance like the shape of the skull, snout bones, eye positioning, anything more than some braincase and rear-of-skull details?
No, because they only found the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this diagram[2] is completely misleading then? It shows a lot of skull material besides the braincase, so I wonder whether some parts have been identified since the original description, or if the image is just erroneous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that there is more material known, maybe dig into newer literature?
I just remembered appendixes exist :/ but it's citing this from 1999 (which I can't access) saying all the parts listed were used in some kinda analysis, and also I can't figure out how to read the appendix because it says things like "Crown height (largest maxillary crowns): 20-30% (O), or 10-15% (I), of height of snout at midlength." So of the things I can read there, it had a maxilla, premaxilla, and a quadrate, and there were air pockets between the maxilla and premaxilla (I've been trying to read this for half an hour, that's all I got). News articles say there was a jaw but I find no reference to a mandible anywhere   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tip, you can access practically anything via the links in the infobox here... FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's cool. But in any case, that 1999 article didn't elucidate anything, so when the appendix cites something I'm not entirely sure what's it's trying to do. All I've added is premaxilla, maxilla, and quadrate bone to the listing of the holotype remains in Discovery and naming. Everything the appendix says about everything seems either trivial or incomprehensible (though if it's incomprehensible it's generally also trivial)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if something has been overlooked on Google scholar. But then again, Sereno was one of the describers, and he has a reputation of not following up on preliminary descriptions with more detail later. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one neck vertebra–likely a middle vertebra–is preserved, and it is proportionally shorter than that of other ceratosaurians, and also it is broader than is tall; like in other ceratosaurians, the back end of the vertebra where it connects to another vertebra (articular process) is very concave" run-on sentence, break this up into at least two
the semi-colon is a replacement for a period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is still too long, please cut it in half and reword if necessary.
Alright is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the centra opisthocoelous? There should be some mention of the centrum description its more easy to understand than the neural arch and spine anatomy.
the entire thing basically is centrum description and what side's convex or concave (every time it says "concave at the articular processes")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then thats something that needs fixing, because articular processes aren't on the centrum, the zygapophyses (see link) are on the arch
anatomy is hard, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most dinosaur articles use dorsal vertebrae instead of thoracic, following almost all literature
done, I'd never seen "dorsal vertebra" before so I just went with thoracic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air spaces" better would be to use air pockets or "_ for air sacs"
I switched it to pockets   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats significant about the angle of the pelvic bone
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second metatarsal bone which connects the ankle bone to the second toe is robust" comma missing
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of saying "metatarsal bone". Why not just shorten to "metatarsal" after the first full use?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on its classification changed between 2003 and 2014? Not from papers on stuff like Rugops or Kryptovenator or Skorpiovenator or Ilokelesia?
Not that I've found, the big thing was finding an abelisaurid outside of Gondwana as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a quick mention of studies like Sereno or Carrano or Pol and where they place Rajasaurus would be good, just to show comprehensiveness in literature. Also maybe add notes on Brachyrostra vs Rajasaurus' placement from Canale. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No maxilla, premaxilla or quadrate are mentioned in the material list of Wilson et al, but is listed here in Discovery. To add: looking into literature the only mentions of cranial material are the Chatterjee 1978 paper and Chatterjee & Rudra 1996, where a premaxilla, maxilla, dentary, jugal, lachrimal and angular are "described" (not really described but talked about). These were referred to Indosuchus. It appears as though the cranial material often drawn as "Rajasaurus" really comes from this bunch of intermetiate fossils. Wait for the Sereno & Wilson paper mentioned as going through indian theropod remains to be published IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Will review soon, some initial thoughts first. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his book, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" Why is this needed in-text?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a comprehensive analysis of abelisaurid size" Likewise.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the unfamiliar reader, perhaps give a general description of its body plan, based on Paul's general description of abelisaurs on page 78 of his Field Guide.
I just found a free preview online, added now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul also states this genus specifically may have used its horn for display and head butting with con-specifics (page 80).
  • You could give some info about how abelisaurs are generally thought to have behaved. Feeding behaviour, I think they are thought to have been fast as well. There is a review paper on this published this year:[3]
Are you sure it's entirely sound to do that? All it specifically says about Rajasaurus is that it had a horn   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is true for abelisaurs in general could be relevant here, for example, if we know all abelisaurs ate sauropods, you don't have to find a source that specifically says Rajasaurus did so. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case I could basically copy over Majungasaurus over here or Abelisauridae. Where's the line drawn?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, because info that is specific for Majungasaurus doesn't necessarily apply to other members of the group. Unlike, well, info that applies to the entire group, and stated as such in a given source. See for example the last paragraph of the palaeoecology section in the recently promoted Oxalaia, that's a good example of how to do it. If a review paper says for example "abelisaurids probably used their horns for display", or "abelisaurids were fast runners", that is very relevant here, so it needs to be checked out. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you got your paleobiology section now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the article better, so if it is "mine", I can only be happy. I might ditch the Isisaurus image, though, it seems everyone agrees it has inaccurate proportions. I am in the process of fixing the horn and jaw muscles on the last Rajasaurus restoration too, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if the horn's too big or if it's just perspective, but in any case I replaced Isisaurus with the Sanajeh snake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed the image before you looked again, it should be fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That paper also has some info on the life appearance on Rajasaurus, the absence of this citation makes me wonder if there has been a thorough literature search about this taxon and its group. On Google Scholar or such.
Are you sure that's the right paper? Rajasaurus only appears three times in the entire thing, two sentences about the horn and once in a cladogram (and they confused India with Madagascar on it anyways)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says specifically "The single horn of Majungasaurus and Rajasaurus do not have the depressed lip seen in Carnotaurus and Ceratosaurus, suggesting that they were covered by cornified tissue without dorsal extension." You might want to read the surrounding text to interpret what this exactly means and how it can be explained here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That just means Carnotaurus had a bigger horn than the fossil shows because it had some skin jutting out on top of the horn, but Rajasaurus and Majungasaurus didn't have the hard skin thing. I don't think that's noteworthy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty significant that we can even tell that the horn was not much longer than the bony core, unlike in some relatives, therefore a recognisable feature of this animal. It tells the reader how the animal might or might not have looked in life. In fact, this info seems to imply that our last restoration that shows a significantly lengthened horn might need to be updated. If you leave it out, it conflicts with the comprehensiveness criterion. An article this short to begin with should'nt leave out directly relevant info about the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it's there now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting the dinosaur was comparatively slower–" This info looks like it would belong in the paleoecology or a paleobiology section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajasaurus was then formally described in 2003 by geologist Jeffrey A. Wilson and palaeontologist Paul Sereno." Needs citation.
oops, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll continue once the issues brought up by Reid have been fixed, since they may significantly alter/expand parts of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went to page 8 on google scholar, there is nothing about the mouth, should I keep going?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going ion what way? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you describe the discovery is a bit vague, this source gives a more precise account you could use:[4]
I rearranged the Discovery section and looks like I forgot to go back and fix it, it should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems there are some details in the link above that could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fragments of Rajasaurus were also found" So more than one specimen in known, or is it part of the same specimen? This is very unclear from the current text.
Ref no. 1 says, "The fossil bones of Rajasaurus are found at Rahioli (Gujarat) and...at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper jaw of Rajasaurus...comes from the ‘Bara Shimla Hill’, Jabalpur."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all part of the holotype, though? If not, this statement is incorrect: "Only the holotype specimen exists". FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "The bones of Rajasaurus were found at Rahioli...and...at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper jaw...in the...reconstruction comes from...Jabalpur," but Wilson 2003 doesn't specifically say Rajasaurus bones were found in Jabalpur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm still confused, does that mean the sources are inconsistent in how many specimens there are? If so, you might have to state this specifically in the article, otherwise it looks like it contradicts itself. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson says he's using remains found in Rahioli (making the Rahioli remains the holotype), and another source says that remains were also found in Jabalpur and these Jabalpur remains were used for a small part of the skull reconstruction while most of it relied on remains from Rahioli. Wilson never mentions the Rajasaurus Jabalpur remains, which would technically mean they are not part of the holotype specimen, and that would technically mean there are 2 specimens. However, that seems like a lot of independent conclusions. Also, they are from different ends of the same formation and in all likelihood represent the same individual whose remains were scattered along a river, meaning there's still only 1 specimen, but that's OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case, you should state explicitly in the article that one author says this, while another says that, without making your own conclusions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson never says the dinosaur is only known from Rahioli, he just says the remains he's describing come from Rahioli   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem is the text currently says "Only the holotype specimen exists", and since we don't know whether this refers to the bones collected from two different places, you need to be more specific for this not to read like a contradiction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted "only the holotype is known"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that as I read along in the article, it seems to have been nominated prematurely, and a peer review would have been in order. I get the same sense from reading the other reviews, there are simply too many inconsistencies and omissions, and FAC is not the place to restructure an article, only to fine-tune it. The nominator also seems unfamiliar with anatomical terminology relating to dinosaurs, flatly stating they do not understand what they wrote themselves, so I would advice them to practice with some dinosaur GAs before attempting FAC, and to get more familiar wit the relevant literature. But furthermore, to not be so hesitant to make suggested changes, it is not very ideal to refuse adding sources and info suggested by reviewers until after it has been repeated several times. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jens Lallensack edit

  • It was not described by Wilson or Wilson and Sereno, but by "Wilson et al." or "Wilson and colleagues".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on a partial skeleton comprising post-cranial remains beyond the skull–the braincase, spine, hip bone, legs – needs rewording I would say, as the braincase belongs to the skull.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creation of the subfamily Majungasaurinae, and its inclusion of abelisaurids from India and Europe, including Rajasaurus, further reiterates this. – Majungasaurus itself comes from Madagascar.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fossil-rich limestone bed – a bed is something different (smaller scale) than a formation, or what bed is this referring to?
"The associated bones of this dinosaur were discovered in the early 1980's in latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) beds," and bed and formation should be synonymous in any case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But one time you are talking about "bed" (singular), and the other time about "beds" (plural), so its not the same. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fragments of Rajasaurus were also found near Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh in the northern part of the Lameta Formation, namely a piece of the upper jaw – Fragments is plural, if it is really only a single piece of the upper jaw, I would use singular here.
"...bits and pieces already known from the Jabalpur site in Madhya Pradesh"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean?
  • which includes the maxillae, premaxillae, braincase, and quadrate bone on the skull; – what about the frontal and parietal? Why mixing plural with singular? If only the left (or right) quadrate has been found, I would make this clearer.
Wilson never specific if he found only 1 or both of the quadrate bones, and if he only found 1 he never specifies the side   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But then you should keep all in singular, otherwise it is misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and spine – not very helpful: what part of the spine?
discussed in the Description section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should, at least, talk about "parts of the spine", as you surely do not have the complete thing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the first Indian theropod to have preserved post-cranial remains – that is simply incorrect I would say.
I missed the word "these"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there is overlap with Lametasaurus? What does the source say, exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the braincase, only the left sides of the parietal and frontal bones are preserved. – In your source, the frontal and parietal are referred to the skull roof, not the braincase.
They're all described under the heading "Braincase"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should at least say "including the skull roof", because the reader will not now that Wilson uses a non-standard terminology. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rims of the temporal fossae – you mean supratemporal fossae? It makes no sense to me to link the human anatomy article "temporal fossa" here.
I have no idea what the difference is and I'm linking because if I say "supratemporal fossa" no one's gonna know what's going on   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That does not work, as the two are different things. There if the infratemporal fenestra (visible in lateral view) and the supratemporal one (visible in dorsal view). Both can lay within a fossa. We need to be precise here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abelisaurids, typically, had elongated fenestrae (holes in the skull) below the quadrate bone near the bottom of the skull – not sure what this means; below the quadrate is just the lower jaw.
Do you know what the subquadrate bone is? Because I don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of a "subquadrate fenestra", I think its just a typo and he means "supratemporal fenestra", as becomes evident considering the context. See Infratemporal fenestra for a visualization of these fenestrae. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a very big typo. So when he said, "The supratemporal fenestrae are extremely elongate, in contrast to the subquadrate fenestrae in other abelisaurids such as Carnotaurus..." he meant "supratemporal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manjungasaurus – typo?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike in other theropods, the crista prootica, which is typically a ridge along the otic capsule bone in the ear, more so juts outward as a stump similar to that of Manjungasaurus – this is contradictory; you first say it is unlike in other theropods, and then you say it is similar to that of Majungasaurus.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • otic capsule bone – The otic capsule is not a bone on its own; it rather would be part of the prootic bone I guess. Also, I would not state that the otic capsule is within the ear (but part of the ear is within the otic capsule).
I don't understand anything of what you just said, isn't the otic capsule just wall in the inner ear?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The otic capsule is the wall around the inner ear. And the crista you are referring to in that sentenc is outside the otic capsule, hence outside of the ear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very big technicality to me, should I change it to "of the ear"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would write which is typically a ridge along the otic capsule, the bony structure containing the inner ear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I have the impression that there are still are too many small errors and prose issues. But more points later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • geologist Jeffrey A. Wilson – should be the same as in the lead, where he is a palaeontologist.
  • that is primarily made of nasal bone more than frontal – the grammar seems off here; "nasal bone" and "frontal" are not substances ("it is made out of water"), but individual elements. You have to formulate like this: "primarily formed by the nasal bone" or similar. Please check also other instances in the article.
  • a thickened layer skin – "layer of skin"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading further, I unfortunately need to switch to oppose, as the issues seem too many. Below, some general advice that will hopefully help you to get the article ready for resubmission.

  • First, be careful. Only incorporate information that you really understand. If you add information that you don't understand, it can only go wrong, and if you don't understand it, how could the reader? For any questions, just ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, we are happy to help.
  • Furthermore, try to understand the context, and in what context information makes sense. For example, you wrote However, if this were the case, then African abelisaurids would display endemism and not Rajasaurus.. This information you took from source [9], which is a response to a news article stating that Rajasaurus was a truly Indian dinosaur (which is an opinion restricted to that one author). Currently you do not provide this context, and the sentence makes no sense at all, and is misleading or simply wrong. I would carefully read through the article with fresh eyes, checking if everything is understandable and makes sense.
That happened from all the shuffling, I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for additional papers on related genera that discuss Rajasaurus, to find some more context. For example, Rahiolisaurus needs to be discussed, as this is the abelisaurid sympatric with Rajasaurus; it would be also interesting to point out how these two differ.
  • Think about shortening the description section, keeping only features that really matter, and whenever they appear to go into excessive detail, point out why they matter. It right now contains a lot of random information you picked from the lengthy published description (e.g., "The fourth metatarsal bone has similar proportions to the second metatarsal") that, without additional context, does not offer much to the reader.
If I were to delete everything I consider unimportant there wouldn't be anything left, I put it in the things I somewhat understood because generally if it's unintelligible it's unimportant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include features that inform laypeople on the general anatomy (providing some background information). Include features which detail on outstanding features of interest (e.g., the horn). Include features that can be compared with related genera (especially when different from related genera). Include all features that have been interpreted in some way (e.g., function). It is difficult to decide what is relevant and what is not, but it is always good to look for a reason why a certain piece of information warrants inclusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this, consider asking for a good copy edit. The prose is not up to the standards yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (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/Rajasaurus/archive1&oldid=856694498"