Talk:Beibeilong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Beibeilong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now, comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • based on an embryonic skeleton – but is it actually an embryo? "Embryo", as far as I remember, adopts a special meaning in paleontology, and often these are actually fetuses. But the reader won't know this. I would avoid the word at this point, and introduce and explain later on.
I'm kind of lost here, the describing paper clearly treats the specimen as embryo/embryonic. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just see that the article embryo covers this: In other multicellular organisms, the word "embryo" can be used more broadly to any early developmental or life cycle stage prior to birth or hatching. So I think it is fine. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually we provide stage names in the taxon box?
Added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Gaogou Formation of China between 1992 and 1993 – I would add the province here, China is too large.
Added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • than oviraptorids, which are two of the major oviraptorosaur families. — formulation not ideal as "which" seems to refer to "oviraptorids" only. Also, can we say "the two most diverse oviraptorosaur families" to be a bit more specific?
Fixed, also removed the which. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • cross-crossed – isn't "crossed" enough?
Don't know why the cross was there. Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a large amount of fossilized dinosaur eggs from Cretaceous rocks and sediments from the Gaogou Formation in Henan Province, China, many of which were embbeded in sediments. – are you saying here that some were not embedded in sediments but in other rocks?
I decided to remove rocks, not really contributing. Hope this reads better. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they were kept out of China – really? Or "outside of China"?
  • While they were kept out of China, many of the blocks containing dinosaur eggs were prepared (cleaned) in other countries – You can remove "China" or "other countries", no need for both. When they are not in China, a reader can assume that they have to be in another country.
Removed China. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was not until 2013 where agreements – "when"?
Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • type locality of excavation – not sure what "of excavation" is doing there.
Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • corresponding to the Heimaogou of the Xixia County – "corresponding" is disconnected from the previous sentence part, and what is "Heimaogou" that is needs a "the"?
Rephrased. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team found eggshell fragments that are otherwise identical – "otherwise"? You didn't mention in which aspects they were not identical.
Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pu and colleagues – you usually give full names, why not give the full name of Pu here?
I do! The full name is given in the previous paragraph. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beibeilong was one of the largest oviraptorosaurs extrapolated from the large Macroelongatoolithus eggs associated with the holotype embryo, measuring as much as 40–45 cm (16–18 in) long – This is a common problem in the article: Sentence parts are not connected to each other in a correct way. When read literally, this sentence would mean that "only of those oviraptorosaurs that had large Macroelongatoolithus eggs, Beibeilong was the largest". This is because you forgot to say what was extrapolated (it's size). Furthermore, "measuring as much as 40–45 cm long" refers to Beibeilong and not to the embryo when this sentence structure is used. You would need a "which measured as much as …", where the "which" is referring to the embryo.
Rephrased some parts and removed the eggs measurements, since they are shown below. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks complete and well-researched, but a big remaining issue is the language, and criterion 1 "well written" is not yet met. Will continue soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hands would have developed functional fingers – most fingers are "functional", can be be more specific?
Changed to long in order to avoid misconception. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be without laptop for a week but finish it right when I'm back, hope that's ok! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is unfortunate, it is what it is I guess 🚶. In the meantime, I'll try to look for additional sentence issues. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • many of which were directly embbeded in sediments. -- I still don't understand, can they be indirectly embedded in sediments? What does that mean? In situ?
Right, in situ. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in company of Mr. Zhang Fengchen—who participated in the initial discovery of the specimen -- Fengchen was already introduced, so no Mr. needed. Also, before it was stated that he discovered the eggs, now you say he only participated in the initial discovery?
I mean, is not literally stated as only, but I guess the wording is not benefitial. Removed —who participated in the initial discovery of the specimen—. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • locality of the Xixia County -- 'the' too much?
Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • semi-articulated -- maybe link to glossary
Linked 👍. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nasal bones of Beibeilong were fused around the naris (nostril) openings -- fused with what, whit themselves? Also, not sure what "around the naris" would mean, with what can it fuse all around the naris?
Rephrased. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although not considered a layer, the boundary" -- I don't understand, a boundary is never a layer, is it?
As far as I understand this "boundary" (or filling?) is not a proper layer. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outer "continuous" layer and inner "mammillary/cone" layer" -- why are these in brackets and not linked or explained as other terms?
Maybe they can be linked to Dinosaur egg or Bird egg? Added small explanations. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eggshell thickness varied from 1.7 mm (0.17 cm) to 2.56 mm (0.256 cm) -- variation between eggs, or between the ends and the midparts of a single egg?
Other than "total thickness", the paper does not specify. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to check: is Pu and colleagues (2017) the only study that included Beibeilong in an phylogenetic analysis? If there are others, they need to be mentioned in the Classification section.
Not that I am aware of, at least. Beibeilong isn't really mentioned in recent literature last I saw . PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elements like the dentary probably fused together after hatching -- You mean, the left and right sides fused together? Should be mentioned for clarity.
Now mentioned, hope this is better. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the perinate Baby Louie specimen of Beibeilong lack some these -- some of what? teeth?
Features of the dentary, mentioned. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • centre -- make sure to be consistent with British and American spelling.
Corrected. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small-bodied oviraptorosaurs (such as oviraptorids with small Elongatoolithus eggs) arranged their nests packed with eggs and a rather small nest center. In contrast, large-bodied oviraptorosaurs (like Beibeilong or Gigantoraptor with large Macroelongatoolithus eggs) built their nests in a ring-like fashion" -- is this accurate? All oviraptorosaur nests have their eggs arranged in rings as far as I know.
I have rephrased most of it. Now the differences should be more clear. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present the idea that oviraptorosaurs did brood their eggs as fact, but this is not so clear and quite debated; see for example Yang et al. (2019) [1].
Mmh, I'll go and add this paper to the section so ideas are more neutral/balanced. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • belonging to alluvial fan and braided river sedimentation of intermittent muddy waters. -- can't understand this.
Did some changes to this part and adjacent sentences. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unsure what muddy waters means. Flooding? I will be back from travelling tomorrow and will have a look at the source then.Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the source is in Chinese, and only with an English abstract that does not seem to be accurately translated. I would suggest to remove anything that we do not really understand, instead of just copying their formulations. I suggest replacing "left by intermittent muddy waters" by "left by braided rivers". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The overall sedimentation across the Gaogou Formation" -- that doesn't make sense to me, as sedimentation is a process. Do you mean Sedimentology?
Changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subfacies-flowing microfacies" -- also here, I am lost. Maybe it makes sense to reduce the detail on sedimentology, and just focus on explaining the most important bits more properly for a general audience?
Reduced technical terms. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggest that herbivorous dinosaurs fed mainly on C3 plants and C4 plants" -- I only know about C3 and C4 plants, what else could they have fed on that is excluded here?
Not excluded? The paper didn't mention other potential food sources. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, all plants are either C3 or C4 plants, or do I remember wrong? So what is the point here? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the source, it says they fed mainly on C3 plants followed by C4 plants. However, this statement is for the Xixia basin as a whole, not the Formation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may still be worth including. I've tweaked it a bit to make it more general. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That did not solve the issue though. Why not making it more specific, providing the numbers (61% C3 plants and 39% C4 plants)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this looks better? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed it from its underlying egg to the eggs at the top. -- I do not understand the "to the eggs at the top", it doesn't fit with "removed"?
Changed to pushed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all from me! The Description section is very good, but the paleoenvironment section needs to be double-checked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! happy to read that. I seem to have checked all the points made, hope this looks better 📙. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there now. Two replies above. Let me check one source tomorrow, and then I can promote.Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by PaleoNeolitic (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Beibeilong; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article
  • 1. New – within the past seven days, the article has been listed as a good article. Nice job! checkY
  • 2. Long enough – Yes checkY
  • 3. Within policy – (NPOV, free of COPYVIO and plagiarism) checkY
  • 4. Inline citations provided checkY

Hook

  • 1. Format checkY
  • 2. Content – (broadly interesting, fact is accurate, neutral) checkY
  • 3. Grammar in hook is OK checkY

Other

  • 1. QPQ has been done checkY
  • Comment: This article meets all of the criteria for DYK and is therefore good to go.DiverDave (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strange time reference[edit]

First sentence of article says

Beibeilong (meaning "baby dragon") is a genus of large caenagnathid dinosaurs that lived in Asia during the Late Cretaceous epoch, about 96 million and 88 million years ago.

The phrase "about 96 million and 88 million years ago" sounds quite strange.

Does this need to be changed to "from about 96 million to 88 million years ago"  ??

- 177.17.27.244 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beibeilong&oldid=1205722694"