Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smilodon/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 [1].

Smilodon edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smilodon is one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat. It may also have been the largest cat that ever lived. We have synthesised most information about the genus and its three species, and explained various controversies. The article is a GA and has been copy edited. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Relentlessly

Here's my copyedit. Other things:

  • The link in citation 34 (Coltrain et al.) is broken. A WebCite cache is available.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images are lacking alternative text.
  • It is perhaps the best known saber-toothed cat, and is commonly known as the saber-toothed tiger though it was not closely related to the tiger and other modern cats I don't see support for the "perhaps" in the article; It is one of the best known saber-toothed cats might be better.
I don't think "one of the best" does it justice really. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, but you need to support the text in the lead in the body. As far as I can tell you don't. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two separate issues here. One, Smilodon as the most popular saber-tooth, and then as the best-known by scientists, due to quality of its remains. In the latter category, it is now "only" one of the best known (Homotherium and Megantereon are also known from many, good remains). So we would have to get the original wording back, but add something about general popularity... To what extend? it is also a state fossil and stuff like that, not sure how important that is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this[2], how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the word "restore" in a technical sense without ever explaining it. I know what it means, but it isn't obvious.
Would it help to say "artistically restored"? Paleoart could be linked earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did the above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the general practice is in biology articles, but could you explain what the Greek words in the etymology mean?
That are explained in the first three paragraphs of the taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You give the phrase, but not the individual words. (I've never heard σμίλη as a specifically double-edged knife, but never mind.) If what you have is the normal practice, fine. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't explain the individual words, so we'd have to source to dictionaries, which might be a bit ORish.. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is now considered an invalid nomen nudum, as it was not accompanied with a proper description, and no type specimens were designated This needs clarification. Is it a nomen nudum partly because no type specimens were designated? If so, you need to lose the comma. If not, the sentence should be restructured.
Yes, removed comma. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the diagram in Description. What's the meaning of the arrow?
Good catch, I think it might be a mistake, will ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • dire wolf kills What is one of those?
The article already states the dietary overlap between them and Smilodon. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Smilodon specimens have been excavated from asphalt seeps that once acted as natural carnivore traps, wherein animals were accidentally trapped and became bait for predators that came to scavenge, but were then trapped themselves. This is a confusing sentence and needs restructuring.
Split up and rewrote, better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this looks pretty good. Relentlessly (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

  • Overall, Smilodon was more robustly built than any modern cat - I'd say "living cat" or "extant cat"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably want to link bush from the lead as it can mean different things to different people....(scrubland?)
Linked to shrubland, but perhaps LittleJerry has other ideas... FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smilodon probably lived in a "closed" habitat - why the quote marks here?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have read though and nothing else is jumping out as an obvious fix so I think we are over the line WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support and CE! FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

The citation formatting needs some work. The samples listed below are just from the first half of the first column of citations (i.e. examples only). Ping me when this work is done, and I'll undertake a full article review. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • author formatting: "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott" or "McHenry, C.R., Wroe S." (no spaces between initials; comma separator) or "Janczewski, D. N.; Yuhki, N." (spaces between initials; semicolon separator)?
Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • page range formating: "176–216" or "319–40"?
Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal article title: sentence case or title case?
Sentence. Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #5 (Leidy): page #?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #6: please add author & date
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #8: (Kurtén and Werdelin 1990) errors in spelling of authors
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #10 (Churcher 1984): pages 57–59 appear to be a bibliography, which does not seem to support the article statement "S. gracilis has at times been considered part of genera such as Megantereon and Ischyrosmilus." unless I’m missing something…
Specified, it was bot generated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider adding open access icons Open access icon to OA refs
Yeah, might do it once more pressing issues are dealt with (it is a bit time consuming, but not a requirement). FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #15: (Ascanio Rincón 2006) what is the journal?
You mean the page numbers? Journal name was already there, but added pages. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata: finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some copyedits here, please check and revert if you don't like any.
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • “intraspecific variation” is a bit jargony
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • mya isn’t used and linked until near the end of article, although the opportunity exists earlier
Fixed, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • publisher for ref #59 Hearld, F.; Shaw, C. (1991)?
.Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#60 ("Dagger-like canines …”) needs an author or publisher (American Museum of Natural History?)
Seems to be ScienceDaily, which is already listed (no author). It is probably just based on an AMNH press release... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WIAFA criteria 1a (prose) and 2 (MOS adherence). Although not knowledgeable about the topic–so can't make an educated opinion about 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched)–but the article answered all the questions I had about the topic. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will take a stab at these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth edit

I thought I would spot check your sources, but decided that you probably needed further general comments. So here is the only one I examined:

  • Reference 3, Berta - Four uses borne out by source, fifth I could not find but I am sure it is present somewhere.
What is the missing statement? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"considered an invalid nomen nudum ("naked name"), as it was not accompanied with a proper description and no type specimens were designated." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is on page 2, under "historical review". FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, the article reads well but there are a few minor points:

  • "Cope found the canine to be distinct from that of the other Smilodon species due to its smaller size and more compressed base. Its specific name refers to its lighter build.! - What is "it" in the second sentence?
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ecomorph" - Although linked, it would be helpful to explain this term.
This is a very complex concept that would be almost impossible to explain in a sentence... Not even our article does it justice. How much explanation? The most concise wording I can think of is "animals with independently evolved similar morphological features, as a result of similar ecologies". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence contains several uncommon words (jargon) making it difficult to understand without clicking through to the linked words. You could omit "an ecomorph consisting of" without losing much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to remove information just because it may be hard to understand. People are here to learn new things, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but don't propose to make an issue out of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having given the differentiating characteristic of Homotherini and Smilodontini, you leave out "Metailurini".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink or explain - derived, extant,
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "successor of Megantereon in North America, from which it probably evolved." - The "in North America" could better come immediately after "successor".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forearms" - I would have thought forelimbs.
Maybe upper arm is meant, but I'll let LittleJerry look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is likely the case. the extensor muscles are forearm muscles (between elbow and wrist). I linked forearm. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several places, a pair of citations are not in numerical order, as [8][4].
Fixed that one, though I never heard that was a requirement before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it mentioned, and it looks more professional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bony growths where the deltoid muscle inserted in the humerus is a common pathology in La Brea specimens, which was probably due to repeated strain when Smilodon attempted to pull down prey with its forelimbs." - This sentence is a bit muddled, moving from plural to singular and on in a strange way ...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with one skull showing an unhealed wound, which indicates the individual died as a result." - This seems rather an unproven assumption to me. It could have been injured, become less able to hunt and died of starvation for example.
But then there would be at least some evidence of bone healing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could have simultaneously ruptured an artery. Having an unhealed skull fracture is not proof that that injury was the cause of death. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's what the source says, what would you suggest? I'd think "indicates" is rather cautious language? "Suggests"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made it even more cautious (seemingly fatal), how does it looks? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mammoth steppes in the north. North American Smilodon inhabited" - Its undesirable to finish a sentence with a word and then reuse it at the beginning of the next.
Moved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: any more? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The responses and changes made to the article satisfy me and I am now supporting the nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber edit

Coming....

Using this version as a stable reference for footnote numbering...

  • FN 60 is faithful to source.
  • FN 45 is faithful to source.
  • FN 35 (used twice) is faithful to source.

More later.

@Casliber: Anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 44 (used twice) is faithful to source.
  • FN 16 is faithful to source.
  • earwig's has one false positive from a mirror site, otherwise fine.

Spot check - am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comment
    • Do we have additional information on the source of File:Smilodon-populator-pride.jpg? The upload history says Funk cut out the background for potential copyright vio, but there's no clear info on where the foreground came from and whether it's the author's work or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author is somewhat notable[3], he uses photomanipulation to create his images; the animals are changed so much as to be "original", but the backgrounds are sometimes iffy... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My only concern is that the source images used for the elephant, Smilodon might similarly be copyrighted, in which case this would be a derivative work I'm not sure he alone could freely release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photos have certainly been manipulated to a great extent. I made a question about a similar image some time ago: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages In the current case, the artist would have changed proportions and other features from the original photos... FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to be safe and remove the image. There are better reconstructions in the article, anyhow. Other than that, all the images are properly tagged and look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. DR as well? The author can also be contacted. I have replaced the image with a photo of hunting lions. Lions are mentioned in the adjacent text as a possible analogy, and I think the photo looks interesting juxtaposed with the painting. But other ideas are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be great to get that sorted out, yeah, that's just out of the purview of this FAC. The replacement image looks fine, and if that works with what you're going for that that's fine by me too :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Smilodon/archive1&oldid=1044078491"