Talk:Nasutoceratops/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Will comment soonish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I still need to do some tweaks to the descriptive part of the intro, but the rest should be good to go. With the usual caveat that I'm unsure if the main description is too detailed or not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Among the discoveries made were three new ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) taxa – Why "taxa" and not simply "species"?

One reason is to have an opportunity to mention and link the word "taxon" outside the descriptive name it was referred to before it was described " It was preliminarily referred to as "Kaiparowits new taxon C" and identified as a centrosaurine (the first member of this ceratopsid group known from the formation) in 2010, and as "Kaiparowits centrosaurine A" in 2013." Since I want to include that information, I think the word taxon must be used outside the quotations too if it is to be explained. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not linking it within the descriptive name? The reader would stop there not knowing what it means, they don't know that it will be linked later. (Very minor point though, feel free to ignore). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Went with "Three specimens of this dinosaur". Usually links aren't added to quotes and descriptive names, but I don't know if there's an actual guideline for this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Prior to this project, the only ceratopsian remains found in the formation were uninformative, isolated teeth, and centrosaurines were known almost exclusively from western North America. – But Utah is western North America. What is the point here?

Well spotted, was missing "northern part", now: "were known almost exclusively from the northern part of western North America". FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Excavated fossils were transported to the UMNH, where the blocks were prepared by volunteers – I first thought this was still talking about the project in general, not about Nasutoceratops in particular. Maybe add "Excavated fossils of the new ceratopsian" or similar to make this clear.

That source is actual about the handling of the fossils from there in general, so I wonder if it can even be made more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• "horned-face" – Why the hypen? Shouldn't it be "hroned face"?

Removed, I think that was how it was before I worked on the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, … – Tapeworm sentence. I also suggest to resolve the lengthy gloss that contains the details about bone fusion etc; better make that an own sentence.

Never heard that term hehe, but split off into: "The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• premaxillae (frontmost bone of the upper jaw), – I thought that, in ceratopsians, the rostral is the foremost bone?

Very good point, tried with "(which formed much of the upper jaw". FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• (a 2013 study stated that half of all valid genera were named since 2003, and the decade has been called a "ceratopsid renaissance") – I know that there are reviewers at FAC that do not like to see extensive glosses like this, and I also think that this is quite difficult to read. Not sure why the brackets are needed.

Tried with semicolon instead. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• In the UMNH press release accompanying the description of Nasutuceratops – The press release still had the spelling from the thesis? Or is "the description" referring to the thesis here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well-spotted, just me making a mistake, now fixed in multiple places... FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The rostral bone (a feature unique to ceratopsians, which forms the upper beak and contacts the front part of the premaxilla) is not preserved in Nasutoceratops – but it is shown and labelled in the figure plate?? At least part of it.

It appears that only its original position is labeled. The paper says "Although the rostral is not preserved in UMNH VP 16800, the general conformation of this element can be inferred from the preserved contact on the premaxilla (Fig. 3)." What's visible in the image is supposedly only the contact surface, fig. 3 in the redescription shows how it would have looked if preserved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "skull" section starts very nicely with that general description of the snout shape. But then, when you discuss the premaxilla, it becomes quite lengthy, repetitive, and tedious to read. For example, you have three sentences mentioning that septum; if it is to be mentioned, one time should be enough.

One septum sentence was removed, the other two were merged into one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• While the premaxilla tends to be similar in other centrosaurines, and that of Nasutoceratops shares features such as having a well-developed septum, a thick, downward projecting angle, being toothless, and thin and blade-like, it can be distinguished in several features. – This is a lot of information at once. I would maybe even remove this sentence, and focus just on the unique features. While reading, I found this quite tedious.

Removed the shared features so it says: "While the premaxilla tends to be similar in other centrosaurines, that of Nasutoceratops can be distinguished in several features." FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• The premaxilla differs in being very tall – You already mentioned that the snout is very tall, and this is basically the same information again.

I've shortened the sentence, but I'm not sure how to describe the distinctness of the premaxilla without mentioning that it is unusually tall. I wonder if most readers would necessarily infer that most of the snout's height consists of the premaxilla anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• and in these two dinosaurs, the upper extend of the premaxilla is higher than the front part of the nasal. – Again, you already mentioned that the snout is bulging upwards. This is just the same information again, but in much more technical, more difficult to understand words.

I tried to condense the sentences and maybe make them less repetitive and more understandable: "The very tall premaxilla of Nasutoceratops differs from other centrosaurines in its upper extent being higher than the front part of the nasal, and having a slight protuberance on the upper edge in front of the nasal bone like in Diabloceratops." FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I still think that this just repeats the same information, giving the impression that these are two independent diagnostic features when in fact they describe the same feature. 1) but it differs from more derived (or "advanced") centrosaurines and is more similar to the basal (early diverging) Diabloceratops in that it expands upwards, giving the snout-region a bulbous appearance. versus 2) The very tall premaxilla of Nasutoceratops differs from other centrosaurines in its upper extent being higher than the front part of the nasal. I think that is misleading. Maybe you can just delete the second sentence, and maybe elaborate the first sentence a bit more (mentioning the bones if necessary). Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "protuberance" is exactly what is being described in the former sentence, though it's certainly a part of it, but I've just removed the sentence for not adding much understanding. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "horn-core" – "horn core" (without hyphen)?

Removed, it has a hyphen in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The premaxilla has an unusual hindwards projecting process – There are usually two – one below and one above the external naris. Consider to explain in illustrative terms where this process is located (e.g., "forming the rear margin of the external naris" (if that is the case, just as example).

I just removed this part, as it is not listed as a diagnostic feature despite how much text that's devoted to it, and because I hardly understand that part of the paper myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• The dorsal ascending ramus has a thin-walled contact surface for the hindwards projecting process of the maxilla, and the condition of this enlarged, steep ramus is unique for this dinosaur. – Probably it's too late, but I cannot understand this sentence. Will continue tomorrow.Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Edit: Does that mean that the maxilla has an articulation with itself?

Makes perfect sense you didn't understand it, because it should have been "hindwards projecting process of the premaxilla", now changed... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• The maxilla of Nasutoceratops was roughly triangular, and was divided into two rami (portions of bone) in side view – The rami should be independent from the view direction?

I removed all of that for not really saying anything unique for this genus and being too technical. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• wear facets – maybe link to "tooth wear"?

I redirected it to there, or do you mean change the wording too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• The maxilla is distinct from those of most ceratopsids in that the tooth row is displaced downwards in relation to the front of the maxilla, – What is this "front of the maxilla" that is higher than the tooth row? From the figures, it looks like as if the tooth row already is the front of the maxilla.

The source says "The maxilla is further distinguished from the standard ceratopsid condition in that the entire tooth row is displaced ventrally relative to the anterior-most portion of the maxilla (i.e., maxilla–premaxilla contact flange; Figs. 2–5). Such ventral displacement of the tooth row is similar to that present in Diabloceratops (UMNH VP 16699) and Avaceratops (MOR 692)". It seems it's the small part of the maxilla right in front of the tooth row that is meant, and that this part seems to be straighter in more derived centrosaurines. I tried simplifying as: "The tooth row is displaced downwards in relation to the front part of the maxilla where it contacts the premaxilla, unlike in most ceratopsids, but similar to Diabloceratops, Avaceratops, and more basal neoceratopsians." FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• The nasal bones of Nasutoceratops form the upper part of the front end of the skull, which is relatively short from front to back compared to more derived centrosaurines, at 248 mm (9.8 in). – Are the 248 mm the length of the nasal? If it is indeed the length of the "upper part of the front end of the skull", then this measurement is useless without more information, because the transition between upper part and lower part is gradual (i.e., I have no idea where to measure this).

The measurement was of the nasals alone, but my description of where they are located is imprecise. Tried with: "The fused nasal bones of Nasutoceratops (which form the upper hind part of the snout) are relatively short from front to back compared to more derived centrosaurines." FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• The shortness of the snout is a result of the abbreviated nasal and maxilla bones, and it may be the shortest of any centrosaurine. – This is general information on skull shape; I wonder why this does not appear in the first paragraph of the "skull" section, which is about general skull shape?

I generally followed the structure of the source, so that details about features involving particular bones are discussed where these bones are discussed. So the text here doesn't per se start with a general description of the skull, but it starts from the front of the skull and moves backwards, and therefore starts with a general description of the snout's overall shape. But I agree that the shortness of the snout makes sense to discuss near a description of the snout's overall shape, so I've moved that sentence up there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• which is also seen in some other centrosaurines, but not in more derived members. – why not simply "as in some other basal centrosaurines" to keep it a bit shorter?

That part was actually wrong, seems I conflated two different sentences, changed to "The nasal bones flare out to the sides in front of the horn, forming a "roof" in front of much of the nasal cavity, similar to Centrosaurus and Achelousaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is a narial spine formed by the nasal and premaxilla, as typical in centrosaurines, which is deflected into the nasal cavity, – Maybe you don't need the "narial" here because you already have "nasal cavity". And maybe "extends" instead of "deflected" is less technical?

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• the inner nasal opening – Do you mean external naris (which is internal with respect to the narial fossa), or the internal naris (which opens into the mouth)? Maybe add an explanation.

The source uses the terms endonaris and ectonaris, which I assume to mean internal naris and external naris, respectively? It also uses ectonarial fossa, which I assume is more or less the same as the ectonaris and the narial fossa? But funnily enough, if I Google images of "ectonarial fossa", all that comes up is images of Nasutoceratops. So it doesn't seem like a widespread term, and I may need some help in formulating this and figuring out what is what... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• that of a Texas Longhorn bull or to a cow. – But aren't female Texas Longhorn's also called "cow"?

Bad attempt at including two different comparisons, I cut the cow part. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• I like the description of the brow horns, but you mention several times that they are unique, which feels a bit repetitive: are one of the most notable features of Nasutoceratops; those of Nasutoceratops differ from all ceratopsids; The brow horns of Nasutoceratops are very different from those of other ceratopsids. A bit of repetition does not hurt, but you could drop one of these maybe.

Reworded their introduction and the examples you listed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• The epijugal bone (or cheek horn) is roughly trihedral in shape and is 85 mm (3.3 in) long and 78 mm (3.1 in) wide at the base, the largest known among centrosaurines. It is similar to that of Diabloceratops in being relatively large and having a flattened front surface, but large epijugals are mainly typical for chasmosaurines, and may be a basal feature among ceratopsids. – The last sentence is a bit difficult to read. Maybe "Large epijugals are more typical for chasmosaurines, but are also found in Diabloceratops. I don't think you necessarily need the rest.

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• As is general for ceratopsian epiossifications (the accessory ossifications that formed the horns and lined the margins of the neck frills in ceratopsids), the external texture is very vascularized and rugose, and it was most likely covered by a keratinous sheath when the dinosaur was alive. – I am not a fan of this sentence. First, it might be better placed in the first paragraph where you talk about general skull features. There, you could start with introducing the various horns and frills, and then introduce "epiossifications", to make this a bit more accessible. Third, you already have the sentence The surface texture of this horn-core appears to be rugose, as is typical for ceratopsids elsewhere, which only repeats this information.

I moved the part that explains what epiossifications are up to the first section under description which is more general, and rewrote it to be more general. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Midline epiparietals are otherwise only known in chasmosaurines – The life reconstruction also seems to show epiossifications along the suture between squamosal and parietal, which would result in five rows of epiossifications. Is there any evidence for that? I don't see them in the reconstructions from the paper.

Not as described, pinging artist UnexpectedDinoLesson about that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• The median bar between the fenestrae is thin from top to bottom near the margins but thick at the midline – Not clear what "top to bottom" means here, I think it is confusing. Maybe just remove "top to bottom".

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• rounded ridge with five undulations of varying height at the midline. – probably I misunderstand something here, but earlier you state "as well as an undulation on the midline", meaning only one undulation on the midline, not five. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these are two different midlines; the frill has an undulation at the middle where the parietals meet, and the five undulations refers to the undulations on the the upper surface of the median bar. Probably badly explained, but in this diagram[1] you can see it clearly on the upper drawing. I tried to rephrase the part about the single undulation like this: " On each side of the frill, one parietal has seven undulations on the margin, as well as an undulation on the midline at the top of the frill; these would have been capped by epiparietals." FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• The humerus (upper arm bone) is 475 mm (18.7 in) long, and has a hemispheric humeral head (upper part) and prominent delopectoral crest, and consists of almost half the whole length of the humerus – What does this mean, the humerus is half the length of the humerus?

Agh, changed to: "and prominent deltopectoral crest, which accounts for of almost half the whole length of the humerus". FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• The three patches with skin impressions associated – You should write "There are three patches with skin impressions …" or similar, since it is the first time they are mentioned. "The" indicates that the reader should already know about them.

It was written like this because they're already introduced in the discovery section. Likewise, I don't introduce other individual bones under description. But I tried to make it a bit more introduction-like by reformulating to: "The three patches with skin impressions that are associated with the scapula and humerus of the left forelimb of the holotype". FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• epileptical – Are you sure about the term? I only know it as a medical condition.

Haha, good old spell-correct, should be elliptical,fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Similar hexagram-like structures were later observed on the limbs of Psittacosaurus, and have been called "stars" – Is "structure" referring to the individual scales or to the arrangement of scales? I can't quite follow.

Changed to "patterns", yeah, it's a stat-like pattern formed of multiple scales. I wanted to include the word "scales" somewhere, but unfortunately the source doesn't use it... I see the paper about about general ceratopsian skin does use the term scale, so I tried with the sentence "and show three kinds of patterns formed by tubercle (round nodule) shaped scales", does that make sense? FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Now my general thoughts about the length of the description section:
  • There are not too many details that stand out to me as obvious candidates for removal. Many of the described details relate to life appearance (horns etc), and here, I think, a detailed description is necessary and of general interest. However, one thing you could consider is removing some of the measurements. I guess that they relate to the holotype specimen only, but a reader might mis-interpret and think they are valid for the genus in general, which is not the case. Since they do not necessarily reflect general features of the genus, they might not be super important to reproduce here.

I've removed the measurement for "The longest axis of the internal nostril opening", but I think many of the others are used for comparison with related taxa, and to show proportions within the animal. I've specified which specimen the measurements were taken from now, to make it clear that it may not count for the genus as a whole. I've kept it as is in the postcranial description because it is so short and it's made clear by then that only the holotype preserves any postcranial bones. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• • However, the description is still very long. I think there are ways to formulate some points more concisely. I also think that in places, it should be possible to use a more illustrative language that makes it easier for people to understand where in the skull the described feature is located.

A good chunk has been shortened or entirely cut during the review, and I think it has made it clearer that I can probably just cut a lot more text if it isn't really understandable if it doesn't also have significance as a diagnostic feature. So that if I have trouble understanding something, and it doesn't really say anything specifically about this animal, it should probably just be removed. I'll take a pass more of the description and see what more of that kind of stuff I can cut. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• • One drastic measure to reduce the length and to make the text more accessible to the general audience is to drop the bone-by-bone approach. Here, you could first describe the skull openings (which then can serve as landmarks), then the shape of the skull, then horns and frill, and then external features like the high ridge on the squamosal. And then, the teeth. If needed, there could also be a paragraph listing additional anatomical details that are diagnostic but less evident; the general reader would be able to skip that paragraph easily. Not sure if this approach is needed, but I want to offer this idea, in case the length turns out to be an issue at FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I like to cover anatomy region by region, and I think it becomes more confusing by mixing up "the order"; if we are talking about the snout, then jump to the ornamentation, back to the jaws, etc. But I had a related idea to have a subsection about skull ornamentation, which would cover the horns, frill, and epiossifications. But I think that would also be strange, because the text would arbitrarily have to ignore the nasal horn when describing the snout bones, and to ignore the brow horns when talking about the top of the skull... Anyway, I moved the part that explains what epiossifications are up to the first section under description which is more general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• that persisted for millions of years – this doesn't really say anything, and it is stated below anyways how much time was between Avaceratops and Nasutoceratops. Maybe remove. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed, yeah, this is explained under the following section anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because the contact surfaces were steeply inclined and more robust than those of more derived relatives, – this mostly repeats what was already stated in the previous sentence. Could be written more concisely.

Changed to "This feature may have been connected to absorbing larger bite forces." FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• The pneumaticity in the nasal bone may have derived from a source in front of it. – What kind of "source" is this?

This was incorrectly summarised, and I don't even think it's needed here, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am unsure about the inclusion of the 2017 Masters thesis. First, it is questionable if this is a reliable source, or if it is a relevant one when it makes original interpretations. According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Is this the case here? Second, the thesis is not about Nasutoceratops anyways but about the dinosaur fauna in general, so might not be strictly pertinent here.

It passed in the Kosmoceratops FAC, and it isn't exactly controversial information, so I think it'll fly. And while it is not necessarily strictly about this genus, the paper indicates it is a candidate, and there is so little else published about its possible lifestyle anyway. But I've cut it from the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the distinct cranial features of Nasutoceratops were unknown – I thought this is going to be about horns and frills, but these have its own section below. Maybe specify that this is about snout and jaws; "cranial features" is too general to be helpful here.

Changed to "In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown, but suggested that the may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians." Which also removed some redundant text. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• While the skull and forelimb were articulated and in close association, – Why both "articulated" and "in close association"? "Associated" usually means "disarticulated but close together".

That's actually how the article put it, I think what it means that the two elements (skull and forelimb) were associated with each other and each of them were articulated. But since it is already established that they were each articulated, I changed to "While the skull and forelimb were in close association". FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• That's all from me. Excellently written and easy to follow overall. Could be more concise in places. Sorry for the excessive comments (almost all of the are concerning the description section). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, well, I asked for it! FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Alright, Jens Lallensack, everything should now be addressed, but some places I have left questions, as I was unsure what to do. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looks very good to me! See one reply above about the snout repetition issue. But as always, it is just a suggestion that you should not follow if you disagree, and of course won't stand in the way of promoting this to GA. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I've answered that and one reply I overlooked above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (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.