Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Istiodactylus

Istiodactylus

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2019 by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Istiodactylus is a genus of pterosaur that lived during the Early Cretaceous. The first fossil was discovered on the Isle of Wight in England. More specimens were later found, including a species from China, I. sinensis, which possibly belongs to a different genus. Istiodactylus (from Greek for "sail finger") was a large pterosaur; estimates of its wingspan range from 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft) long. Its skull was about 45 centimetres (18 in) long, and was relatively short and broad for a pterosaur. The front of the snout was low and blunt, and bore a semicircle of 48 interlocked teeth. It had very large forelimbs, with a wing-membrane distended by a long wing-finger, but the hindlimbs were very short. It was a scavenger that may have used its distinctive teeth to sever morsels from large carcasses. The wings may have been adapted for soaring, which would have helped it find carcasses. Istiodactylus is known from the Wessex Formation and the younger Vectis Formation. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): A pterosaur has never been TFA. A Dinosaur was last TFA on June 16.
Main editors: FunkMonk
Promoted: July 22, 2017
Reasons for nomination: Dinosaur articles have become a staple at TFA, but we are soon running out of them (three are currently left). There has not been a pterosaur TFA yet, probably since only two exist, so I suggest this one, to take the pressure off the dinosaurs a bit, and to put some focus on the group (which is often overshadowed by or confused with dinosaurs).
Support as nominator. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support important to promote and educate about prehistoric animals that weren't dinosaurs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Casliber. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1188 characters is too long ... thoughts, FunkMonk? Happy to trim it if you want me to. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here I'd appreciate help with. I know that not all biology writers are going to be on board or will care ... but there's a strong "inconsistency is bad" theme at FAC and especially on the Main Page, and per that theme, we should be writing "Istiodactylus was a pterosaur ... This genus ..." instead of "Istiodactylus is a genus" (per the tendency of WP writers to flip back and forth between name-as-name and name-as-animal, per WP:LEAD and the use–mention distinction, per the code-switching that's common among biologists when writing for the public instead of for academia, per linguistic principles, per precedent at TFA ... per everything, basically). Also ... we really need to do something about "Early Cretaceous period", which is like nails on a chalkboard (or would be if chalkboards were still a thing). - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC) (In case this last bit is confusing anyone ... the Early Cretaceous is an epoch, not a period. I get what they're doing here, but ... yikes, that's bad.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John tells me that I'm sounding irritated ... I'm not irritated, I'm just trying to get across that there are a wide variety of constraints here, and I don't particularly want to go into detail, because people generally don't have the patience for it. The closest I can come to a bottom line here is: a genus doesn't squawk and fly around. Biology writers effortlessly hop back and forth between the two meanings, of course, but there's something of a consensus at FAC, and a stronger consensus on the Main Page, that it's a bad idea to use a word to mean one thing in one sentence and a different thing in the next sentence, because that can be confusing for readers, even if it's convenient for writers. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but it is like saying "was a species of pterosaur", "this species had a big beak", which I don't think anyone would find strange or hard to understand? The term species or genus just refers to the kind of animal, whether as a taxonomic unit or as the biological population. As for period/epoch, I have no strong feelings. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say here. I'm not going to make a big thing of it. People who argue about guidelines and policies sometimes paint wikiprojects as the enemies of global consensus; although I understand their frustration, my own view is close to the opposite of that: I respect the way small groups work together on Wikipedia more often than I respect the way large groups interact. So, in general, in cases where I can't point to a specific guideline or policy, I'm really uncomfortable taking a wikiproject to task for using language differently than other wikiprojects ... if you guys can agree on consistent language and if it doesn't cause trouble, that's great, it's really the most anyone should ask. But I'd like for you to contemplate why you just said "was a species of pterosaur" when you say "is a species of pterosaur" in the blurb ... is it because there's ambiguity in your own mind over whether the subject of your sentence is something that existed in the past (something big that flapped around) or something that exists in the present (a classification scheme)? And not just for you, of course ... jumping between past and present is common in biology articles. This isn't something that happens in non-biology TFA blurbs ... no one says that long-gone ship, monument or storm "is" something, because when they said "ship", they really meant "the classification scheme for the ship, which still exists". - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, since someone was ragging on me yesterday at WT:TFA, I guess I should be careful to say: our biology writers at FAC in general and FunkMonk in particular are experienced, competent writers, and I've enjoyed working with all of them for many years. I and every other writer struggle with curse of knowledge issues all the time, especially at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe this is something that needs a wider discussion then? I think discussion of a specific TFA is an inadequate venue to make such wide reaching decisions. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind calling for a vote, but it will probably be a month or more. Meanwhile ... do you want me to trim the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized that this has been a bad day for me ... I hope I didn't go too far there. It would make life easier for me if we could move "genus" to the second sentence, but it's not something I actually need, if you want to keep it. We do need to shorten the blurb, though. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, feel free to do any edits you want here, as with the echo parakeet, I have nothing against the TFA blurb differing from the article intro, as long as the meaning isn't radically changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I only trimmed it a little. Feel free to fiddle with it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]