Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duriavenator/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2022 [1].

Duriavenator[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a megalosaurid, one of the few major groups of carnivorous dinosaurs that have not yet been represented at FAC. This particular animal was long thought to be the same as Megalosaurus itself (the first named dinosaur, and historically very important), though was much later recognised as distinct, and that's the gist of the story here. The entire literature has been summarised, and there were some nice free images available. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
    • File:Megalosaurus display.JPG isn't the display copyrighted?
The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other images look OK for licensing
  • The "Description" section is quite long. Would it be possible to separate into subsections for increased readability? (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be possible to divide it into sections about the upper and lower jaw, I'll have a look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made two subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

this name means "the West" or "western". - strictly speaking it's the epithet that means western not the binomial as such....
Oh yeah, I removed the word "specific name" from the intro on request at the GAN, but now re-added it for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Later researchers doubted whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus - I'd write either, "Later researchers questioned/pondered/deliberated/queried whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus" or "Later researchers doubted the species belonged in Megalosaurus" (i.e. doubting is not questioning but naysaying)
Said questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, avoid having both paras of lead start with "Duriavenator..."
Tried with "Estimated to have been 5–7 m (16–23 ft) long and weighed 1 t (2,200 lb), Duriavenator has been described as a medium-sized theropod." FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why is freestone in quotation marks
One source did this, not sure why, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... it would have been massively constructed - odd use of "constructed" - I'd say "built" but I'd not use "constructed" in the same way...
That was how the source put it, but changed to built. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more later looks pretty good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's marked as support in the section header. There is one indicated future review further below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Recusing to review. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the infobox gives a range of 169.1-168.7 mya, while the body just says about 168 mya, is the infobox figure false precision?
Not sure what that's based on, just changed to 168. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "surface of the maxilla adheres to the counterpart slab" - is there a way to link or gloss counterpart slab?
Linked to Compression fossil, which is not a perfect match, but covers some of the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cast of the holotype dentary, showing the long teeth at the front, YM (left) and an isolated tooth, NHM (right)" - this caption is a bit confusing. Does this indication some sort of specimen number? It's not clear what YM and NHM mean here
It's just abbreviations of museum names mentioned in full in earlier captions. Those abbreviations are parts of the specimen numbers too, so in a sense you're right, but I'm not sure it is needed to write the names in full again? FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Mortimer's credentials for the theropod database?
Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[2] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with Tracy L. Ford
Same as above:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrano/Benson/Sampson - any way to make that page range a bit more specific, range given is almost 90 pages
Specified to the three pages used. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2000). "A new phylogeny of the carnivorous dinosaurs". Gaia: 5–61." - any chance for volume/issue numbers here?
Added volume. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2012). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. New York: Random House. p. 92]. ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7." - I can't tell if the bracket after p. 92 is spurious or if there's a missing bracket somewhere else (My childhood copy of the 2007 edition is somewhere in my parents attic, seeing it here makes me want to dig it out when I visit for Christmas)
Removed, it was a remnant of when the citation included a link to an online version of the book which seemed illegal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources perchance indicate how they estimate length/size? I image they estimated based on a comparison of head size to that of similar, more complete, specimens, but it would be nice if that could get spelled out.
Paul makes a general statement about his methodology, not about this particular taxon. But I've added "(size estimates of incompletely known dinosaurs are extrapolated from better known relatives)". FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here, I found this one quite interesting. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answers above. Holtz's book still holds up, I believe I got it for Christmas too! FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LittleLazyLass[edit]

Just reserving a spot here to make sure this doesn't close without me; I'm swamped in exam prep for the next week, but sometime later than the 16th I'll be giving this a look through. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleLazyLass, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: As can Cassell & Company Limited. I'd also capitalize the "C" in "Company" and the "L" in "Limited". And the name of the chapter being cited can also be added.
Did both. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #3: Volume/issue number?
Not sure how to get this info, or if it even exists. Neither volume or issue is mentioned in the sources that cite it, and I can't see the front page (I was sent the specific article at WP:RX)... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to avoid linking authors in citations because 99% of the time they're just duplinks of names already mentioned and linked in the main text. Also, it looks odd when citations by the same author is linked multiple times. Is it necessary? If there is no guideline that encourages this, I'd prefer not (it is also very tedious work). Same goes for similar suggestions below. But note I spelled out full names this time, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked journal, but would like to discuss linking of author names as per above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10: What makes this wall of text reliable?
Here's what I said to HF about this above: Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[4] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #11: What makes this reliable?
Same as above:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked in the article, which I think suffices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked publisher. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #14: University of California Press. Why "Berkeley chapter" instead of "Berkeley" (compare with refs #16 & #30)? Are there subsequent editions, that make the "1st ed." necessary"? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles?
Added amp, "chapter" was a mistake, was adding the chapter parameter but forgot to finish it, it seems, now fixed hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #16: University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links. "2 ed." should be "2nd ed." Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles (besides Holtz Jr., who can be linked again)?
Added amp and added nd, but refrained from doing duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #18: Palaeontology can take a link. What about the authors? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Added the amp parameter. Why duplink journals in citations, though? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added date and linked Smithsonian Institution. Not sure if Riley Black will turn blue again, so I think it can wait in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoided as duplink. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21: Holtz Jr. can take another link. 12 January 2012, not 2011. What is this thing?
It's an online appendix to the book that is currently ref 27. It basically has some additional size estimates and other odds and end, should count as self published by a topic expert. I've changed the date and the too specific title (what it was called from where I copied it from). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked publisher, added nd, and en dash. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #23: ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked journal, added amp, and added strangely missing page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and amped, added missing page numbers (the html version has no pages). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #26: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Added amp. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked Random House, but would like discussion of the author names. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Cambridge University Press, seems only the online version is Elsevier. Added location. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added amp and journal link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added amp and 2nd, but the rest would be dulinks it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. FunkMonk, one or two (or three dozen) comments above, but they're all minor. The one more significant comment is that a lot of sources are cited without any indication of what the relevant page(s) are. If someone wants to check out source #51, which of the 57 pages should they be looking at? I would normally use pin cites (i.e., separate "References" and "Bibliography" sections, like in The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)), but here it make more sense to use the style of cite that looks like "ARTICLE TEXT.[15]:24–26". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that probably comes back to the old discussion about whether journal articles need more specific page ranges, I think there is an upper limit to what should be accepted, and in some of these cases only some of the pages are needed, so I've substantially cut the one you mentioned (I guess you meant #15?) and some others. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to now, did most, except the duplink issues. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, Gog the Mild. Looks good to me. FunkMonk, a delight to see the full names! All those links aren't required, I just tend to think they're good practice. Especially for the author names, I'm not always going to think to look through the rest of the article to see if a particular author has a Wikipedia article. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

  • I have just one very minor comment: Could the gloss explaining that the Bajocian is "a stage in the Middle Jurassic" also be added to the mention in the lead? Otherwise excellent work here. AryKun (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added, though the Middle Jurassic is mentioned in the first sentence of the intro. Anything else? Feel free to nitpick, especially about whether technical issues are improperly explained. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was no reason to divide them" → "thought there was no reason to divide them"?
Good catch, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Walkersaurus be italicized instead of in quotes?
Since it's an invalid name, that's how such are formatted in the literature to distinguish them from validly published names. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link the ? in "Megalosaurus?" (or just the whole name), as people are unlikely to know what the ? means.
Added (the question mark indicating incertae sedis, uncertain placement). FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of upper jaw, what exactly does "process" mean?
Linked Process (anatomy) and added (outgrowths). FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I could find after going through this again, besides some small edits not worth mentioning here. This is very well explained, easy to get through even for someone with little knowledge of dinos beside what you pick up in the elementary school stage of being obsessed with them. AryKun (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good points and edits, now addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support A few comments.

  • "heavily plastered" I'm not clear on what this means, unless the Dino was intoxicated.
Changed to "is covered in plaster". But I like your idea better. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later examinations by Benson of British fossils earlier assigned to M. bucklandii accepted some these a belonging to the species.[20][5] " Some confusion in this sentence. Also, did you intend to have the refs in reverse numerical order?
Changed to "Benson later examined British fossils that had earlier assigned to M. bucklandii and found that some of them belonged to the species after all." Changed order of refs, but not something I look for actively. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " two preserved as tooth crowns" How is this a preservation? Does this mean someone supplied what they guessed was the proper size casts?
Changed to "two preserving the tooth crowns, one preserved as a cross-section". The source worded it in a way perhaps too jargony for us. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wehwalt, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2022 (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/Duriavenator/archive1&oldid=1064362312"