Talk:Kelenken

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 09:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, beginning the review of this article. It's certainly been elevated from its start class origins. The Paleoenvironment section is quite a nice idea for background info. I note a few more wikilinks could be added (eg. Andrewsornis is linked nowhere in the prose), and would suggest the size comparison image simply be cropped to remove Brontornis rather than the reader needing to rely on the caption for what should be a simple visual aid. That said, these are general points and not GAN issues. Looking forward to looking into this more closely. CMD (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for review and good suggestions, I have linked more names that were only linked in the cladogram. As for the size diagram, I'm only using the current one as a placeholder because someone is working on a better, more accurate one only showing Kelenken. So if I don't get that one, I'd rather just make a new one myself (or request one at WP:paleoart) rather than trying to salvage the one in the article, which isn't very good. I can also just remove it for now, if that seems better. And feel free to add further, detailed observations, I intend to take this to WP:FAC next. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted, will express additional thoughts beyond GACR below then.

Thanks, I also just added some more text to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a better size diagram, but not yet the one I'm waiting for. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence is understandable but it's also an awful lot of comma separated phrases.

Tried wit parenthesis like in the article body, any better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• An unlinked name (Guillermo Aguirre-Zabala) feels odd in the lead, especially with no further information about who they are. Scrolling down to the body and then back up, I would suggest adding "high school student" before the name, which gets across interesting info in a way that an unadorned name does not and explains why it is unlinked.

Added "high school student", I thought it was important to mention his name in the intro, since the species was named after him. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Unsure about the "TOWN, Patagonia" construction, as it implies Patagonia is an administrative area. I see from source titles that Patagonia is mentioned as a location, but I don't see an immediate link between Patagonia and Keleken outside of a link to the Tehuelche people. Patagonia is a large region, and the locations shown and mentioned are but a small portion at its northern end.

Changed to "in the region of Patagonia in Argentina", I think it's important to note, as the sources do, and this seems to be were many Argentinian fossils are found. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "The discovery of Kelenken made the anatomy of large members of its group clearer, since these were previously much less well known." This could use some tweaking, I think it's suggesting that Kelenken improved understanding of terror birds as a whole?

Smaller terror birds are much better known, so this is specifically about the large ones. Reworded to "The discovery of Kelenken clarified the anatomy of large phorusrhacids, as these were previously much less well known". FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "At 716 mm (28.2 in) long, the skull of Kelenken is the largest known of any bird" is remarkably specific to describe a whole genus. Is the holotype skull the only skull? (Same question for the other bones.) If so, it would be good to state this explicitly here. At any rate, I would suggest a tweak to "the skull of the holotype specimen" or similar to remove the implication all individuals had skulls within a mm of each other. ("first specimen" in the preceding paragraph did suggest there were multiple specimens, so this tone shift is a bit confusing.)

It is the only specimen know so far, but unfortunately no source states this specifically, as I guess it's a given in the context. But I've added "holotype" a bunch of places. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• "as well as a combination of other features", would suggest moving this addendum to the start of the sentence, eg. "...differed from other phorusrhacids through a number of features, including the length..."

Moved around. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Kelenken instead": would make a great species name.

Whoops, moved "Instead" out of the italics... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Studies of the related Andalgalornis show that large phorusrhacids had very rigid and stiff skulls that indicate they may have swallowed small prey whole or targeted larger prey with repetitive strikes with the beak." Suggest splitting this into two sentences.

Tried with a semicolon instead, as the resulting split sentences seemed fragmentary to me: "Studies of the related Andalgalornis show that large phorusrhacids had very rigid and stiff skulls; this indicates they may have swallowed small prey whole or targeted larger prey with repetitive strikes with the beak." FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• "which represents open environments", is "represents" the right word here? It doesn't read well to me.

I'm not sure there is anything technically wrong with it, but changed to "when open environments predominated". FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• "cursorial" could use one of those handy parenthetical explainers you have included elsewhere (including in the body for cursorial).

Explained and linked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Some prose in the first paragraph feels a bit close to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette article, although not what I would call a copy.

It has been shaken up a bit with other edits, if that's any better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "around 2004" is oddly vague, is there no better dating available?

Unfortunately, the sources just say "two years ago", and being from 2006, 2004 seemed logical, but I can't be certain. So I'm not sure about how else to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is "made the specimen" the right terminology?

To make a specimen a holotype is a phrase used in scientific articles, such as[1][2][3]. "Designate" can also be used. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• "which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa, until the discovery of Kelenken." How does finding the first ever mostly intact skull improve comparison? There's no other skulls to compare it with.

There are complete skulls of small phorusrhacids known, so Kelenken just makes it easier to compare them with those of larger members, which is clarified in the second paragraph under Description. But made it clearer with "which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes". FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• It may flow better to have the information about the skull vs. other genera after the currently subsequent paragraph describing the holotype.

It was like what you describe originally, so moved back to that. FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Bertelli et al. 2007 seems useable to say there is only a single specimen?

Since no other specimens are mentioned in either the paper or this article, only the holotype, I think it goes without saying? The paper doesn't specifically say there is a single known specimen, but that should be inherent in the fact that only one is mentioned, like here. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Some sentences in the first paragraph are uncomfortably close to Bertelli et al. 2007.

Likewise shaken up a bit by other edits, but much of it is just a list of places, so it's difficult to be much different, unless there is something specific you're thinking of. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Some description text also seems close to Bertelli et al. 2007 (eg. "a supraorbital ossification...that fit into a socket of the postorbital process"), however I am unsure how else this might be worded so don't think I will insist on a rewrite there. Other parts, like the sentence starting "These bones were thought to belong to a single specimen" should probably be reworded.

Reworded the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• In Evolution, the 2015 paper taxonomy is shown as a cladogram, but in the lead the 2011 taxonomy is presented. Is there a reason for the difference?

Technically that genus is the closest even in the 2015 cladogram, but changed to "along with for example Devincenzia" in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Description

• "Kelenken was the largest known phorusrhacid" suggests to me a larger one was discovered since, but I can't see that in the text. The same tense is used in "Kelenken was about 10% larger", but not used in "making it the largest skull of any known bird".

Changed to present tense in the former example ("is the largest known phorusrhacid"), but since it is a prehistoric animal, it was "10% larger", no? FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the first paragraph, on general phorusrhacids info, might serve better as the first sentence of the paragraph/section, as it introduces the bauplan before going into the specifics of the holotype.

Agree, it was initially, switched back around (also in the intro). FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• "mainly formed by the frontal", is "frontal" here meant to be plural? It is at every other use.

Like most other skull bones, this is a paired bone (two mirrored halves), so even the source is inconsistent in whether it uses plural or singular, both would work. I made it plural most places now, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Paleobiology

• "permit greater agility when moving between vertical obstacles. The narrow upper maxilla would also help catching small animals hidden among tree trunks or stones" is too close to the source.

Changed to "as this would would make these birds more agile". FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "used to break long-bones of medium-sized mammals", unfamiliar with this phrasing, should "long-bones" have a "the" here?

I see you added the correct link, sure could be definite, doesn't have to be, but added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Possible to add an explanatory parenthesis for "corpulent" and "graviportal"? Similarly, I feel "flexion abilities" might be able to be reworded, although the meaning is a bit more intuitive.

Explained the first ones as "bulky" and "more heavyset and slow", and reworded the last to "flexibility". FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Paleoenvironment

• "had only been preliminarily studied at the time", could be present tense if it hasn't been studied since?

Problem is I don't know if it has, I've requested some newer articles about other fossils from the formation at WP:RX. But it will be difficult to definitely find out if they don't say anything. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The newer papers don't seem to say anything new about these particular outcrops, but do not express doubt about the age of this formation around Comallo, so I've just made the wording a bit less doubtful by removing "thought to belong". But either way, it was only preliminarily studied at the time, so I think it's safest to keep that wording, as it will be true regardless of whether it is restudid. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Same question regarding "represent" as in the lead.

Changed to "represent a time when more open environments with reduced plant covering predominated". FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• The significance of the final paragraph in relation to Kelenken is unclear to me.

The one about contemporary animals? It's a common feature of palaeontology articles, to establish context, and here, hinting what could have been potential prey animals, though the sources don't do so specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall, a very detailed article and pleasing (if dense) to read. The writing is technical but that seems appropriate for the topic (1a), nothing jumps out about MOS (1b), all information when checked was present in the sources (2a,b,c), appropriately broad (3a), minor concerns regarding straying slightly off topic are both small and potentially justified by a paucity of specific information (3b), neutral (4), stable (5), and images are relevant, licensed, and captioned (6a,b). My main concern is potential close paraphrasing in some areas (2d). Putting on hold. I hope one day to read an article on the namesake spirit. CMD (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, often I request a copyedit to get the text shaken up a bit so the wording gets further away from the sources. But in general, it's just very difficult to reword for example anatomical description (particularly diagnostic features) without changing the meaning too much. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that anatomical descriptions are not as necessary to try and rewrite, given the need for accuracy and the reasonably standard way descriptions are worded in literature. I didn't raise most instances of descriptive similarities, and tweaking the non-anatomical prose would be enough for me. CMD (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I've now addressed the above points, Chipmunkdavis, but I'm awaiting some sources before I can act on the "preliminarily studied" issue. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You around, Chipmunkdavis? FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been very busy and unable to dedicate a long enough period of time to give this the attention it deserves. I hope to get to it soon. CMD (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've never seen a GAN attract vandalism before, that was weird. Worth if I request a second opinion then? I'd like to get this wrapped up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I requested one in the meantime, just in case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had some time to look at this again. Thank you for the detailed replies, most of these were very well solved, I'm just taking a bit more time to look at the areas I thought were closely paraphrased. CMD (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bertelli 2007 abstract specifically mentions "known by a single specimen", if that might help with any later c/e. However, not going to let that hold back this stage. I've made some copyedits at the remaining areas that seemed too close to the sources, which I believe maintain fidelity to the original meaning. With that done, and as noted with the other issues already being handled, I am happy to pass this now. Thank you for the read, CMD (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can work it in. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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.