Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bajadasaurus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [1].

Bajadasaurus

edit
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • I did the GA, so for now I only have some suggestions for additional sources. And then I wonder if, since you mention the semicircular canal head posture theories, if it should be stated some studies have doubted this idea? I'll come back later if it needs further reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding size estimates, I assume that the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" book[5] is new enough to have an entry on this genus, but I don't remember whether we concluded it was reliable enough or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article[6] states it "hit the headlines" for it spines, which could maybe be a way to cite that it became well-known immediately after its description? Personally I think it's interesting to note how the press reacted to the discovery, and that almost every headline mentioned its "mohawk". FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took that into account, but there is barely any useful info inside there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - might as well give my formal support since this seems to have stalled. I GA reviewed the article with FAC in mind, and it has only been improved since. FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta comments

edit

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the citation formatting could use a bit of tidying. Some examples:
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this; now that everyone else has had a look, I'm finding only small nitpicks: Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”The eye openings of Bajadasaurus were exposed when the skull is viewed from above” I know what this is trying to say (i.e., it’s a rewording of “dorsally exposed orbits” from the source) , but the way it’s written it sounds like they weren’t exposed when not viewed this way? (same issue later on in the article as well)
I now switched back to "in top view", as I had originally (and changed per reviewer suggestion), to avoid this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish (language) and Greek are linked, so for consistency one might want to also link Latin
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”referring to the long and forward curved neural spines” -> forward-curved
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”the discovery of Bajadasaurus was widely reported on by international news media.”
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The neural spine of the axis was narrow and not bifurcated; it differed from other sauropods in being vertically oriented (an autapomorphy of the genus); triangular in cross-section; and tapering towards its apex.” I think those final two semicolons should be commas
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing those out. Done all except for the last; it is not a flagellum. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A subsequent analysis by Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla” Whitlock’s first name is not mentioned in the article text
added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says that CONICET "said Bajadasaurus could have had a fleshy hump between the spines that served a similar role to that of a camel", which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article
Thanks, but I think we need to restrict ourselves to the peer-reviewed scientific articles when it comes to speculations like this. News articles are generally highly unreliable in such contexts, and this quote does not even make sense and seems to be highly oversimplified at best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article meets the FA criteria. Esculenta (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Could we be told how old the genus is in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • "from the Early Cretaceous epoch"; " from the Early or Middle Jurassic to the end of the Early Cretaceous". Both from the opening paragraph. Appears 1. repetitive, 2. inconsistant.
  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • "bifurcated". Possibly follow with '(two-pronged)'?
  • Link gracile.
  • "The only specimen was excavated ..." As this is the start of the main article, I feel that a proper reintroduction may read better. Perhaps something like 'The only specimen of the dinosaur genus Bajadasaurus was excavated ..."?
  • "The site of discovery". Should that be 'The site of the discovery;>
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
  • "near the western banks". Is that in US English? "banks" plural reads oddly to me.
  • Link anteriorly.
  • Link process at first mention.
  • "As all sauropods". Should that be 'As with all sauropods'?
  • "roughly reaching sizes of present-day Asian Elephants". 1. Maybe 'roughly reaching the size of present-day Asian Elephants'? 2. Lower case e.
  • "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers.
  • Caption: "whose similarly elongate neural spines". Should that be 'elongated'?
  • "The skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase" reads oddly, especially as the start of a section. Perhaps 'The fossilised skull', or something else to clarify that you are not writing about Bajadasaurus skulls in general.
  • "Its overall built was gracile." "built" → 'build'.
  • "was wider than high". Optional: → 'was wider than it was high'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus." → 'Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, which was different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus.'
  • "likely had 44 teeth in total." I am struggling to add the numbers to 44. Either in the article or in Gallina et al. Could you help me out?
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as typical for dicraeosaurids" → 'as is typical for dicraeosaurids'?
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moderate damages would result in the break-off of the horny tips". 'damage' singular, I think.
  • "while the sight of most other sauropods" Maybe "sight" → 'vision'?
  • "furthermore" → 'further'.
  • "At its top, it is separated by the overlying Agrio Formation". Should that be 'At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation'?
  • "mya". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page ..."
  • done.
  • Several references lack identifiers. Eg ISSNs or JSTORs.

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts
edit

I stopped by to see why this was still on the list and am now kicking myself. The Rambling Man has identified some good points, several of which I read straight past, I assume because I understand them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.

There is obviously room to disagree over what constitutes "unnecessarily", “highly technical”, “appropriate”, “understand” and “sense”. But the general message seems clear.

TRM seems to have done a good job of picking out possible issues re this bit of the MoS; so far as I can see, the unresolved ones are:

  • Braided river
  • stage
  • phylogenetic analysis
  • specific name
  • braincase
  • prefrontal
  • surangular
  • Features

There are more ways to skin a cat than putting it in parentheses. So purely as optional suggestions for your consideration I offer:

  • Perhaps “These sediments were mostly deposited by braided rivers” ‘These sediments were mostly deposited by networks of separate river channels, known as braided rivers ...' or similar?
Here I wonder why an explanation is necessary in the first place. The word "braided" is not needed to understand the general meaning of the sentence, it is just an additional bit of information (specifying the type of river). I fear that a short explanation like this does not do it justice, and people will get a wrong picture into their heads (they have to understand that these are small, very shallow river channels diverging and uniting, not what you think of when you hear the word "river channel"). With your suggestion, we would also introduce an awkward repetition ("river channels" is repeated later in the sentence). To sum up, I would argue that the general reader does not need to understand this term, and those who want to are better served with the designated article on that topic that is linked. But I am also not strictly against adding an explanation, I'm just wondering if it is really the best solution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated to the late Berriasian to Valanginian stages of the Early Cretaceous". I am not sure that a technical term is necessary here. Could a less technical word be used? 'era' perhaps? (And linked to stage. And yes, I am aware of Era (geology).) Or 'epoch' or 'period'?
In fact, we add the word "stage" to this and other dinosaur FAs to achieve the opposite: To add a bit more context, indicating that Berriasian and Valanginian are some sort of time intervals. It is supposed to help the general reader. In a technical article, we can just simply omit such words. I am open to remove them, but I'm not quite convinced this would really improve the situation for a general reader (because Berriasian and Valanginian are left without this context). "Epoch", "period", "era" all have different definitions, and using them instead would simply be wrong. We could choose something like "time intervals" instead of "stage", but that seems awkward to me (especially because "Early Cretaceous", which follows, is also a time interval). Please let me know if you feel this word should be removed, but in this case, it could be that TRM will complain about the then unexplained terms "Berriasian" and "Valanginian". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specimen was formally described as the holotype of a new genus and species". Maybe something like 'The specimen was formally described, and this description was used as the "holotype", or defining example, of a new genus and species' would give a casual reader sufficient in line information without reducing the article to baby talk?
This is another example of a term that is not needed to understand the sentence (as I also explained in the discussion with TRM below). Explaining it will suggest to the reader that this is something important that they need to know and remember in order to continue with the rest of the article, when in fact they can just ignore and forget this term. Explanations, therefore, can make reading articles more difficult; this is another reason why I have my personal issues with providing explanations that are not pertinent for the article. But to resolve this issue (and to illustrate my point), I just removed this term completely from the article. This, now, is no longer in-line with other dinosaur FAs and will only work as long as there is only a single specimen, but for now, at least, we got rid of one potentially confusing term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I agree that understanding this term will be important. I took your suggestion, which didn't came to my mind when I first pondered about it while addressing TRM's suggestions, so thanks for this. It might be true that people with a bit more knowledge about the topic might need to think a second to understand what we mean with this unfamiliar circumlocution, but then, again, I agree that our general audience should get priority. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specific name" IMO needs a footnote.
But what is, if I may ask, the practical advantage of a footnote over a wiki link? Both require a click. I now tried to solve this issue with a small fix: adding pronuspinax, to demonstrate that it refers to this part of the name. Do you think this makes it reasonably clear already? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clever. Given that the previous sentence starts "The specimen was formally described as a new genus and species, Bajadasaurus pronuspinax" yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "braincase" seems a normal and understandable English word to me, especially in context: "the skull roof and braincase". Ie I don't personally see any reason to further explain this.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that "orbit" has already been explained, "The upper-front corner of the orbit was formed by the prefrontal bone" seems a perfectly adequate in line explanation to me.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surangular bone seems a tricky one. Possibly a footnote?
But we already explain that it is a bone in the hind part of the lower jaw; what else would the reader need to know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Features" seems to be being used in the normal English sense: "anatomical features distinguishing the group from related taxa".
Yes, indeed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the unrecused coordinators will make of your not addressing these points, or only addressing some of them, but I am a fan of encyclopedia articles actually explaining their subjects to as broad a range of readers as reasonably possible. Any how, see what you think.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog, and thanks for your suggestions. Like you, I also aim to explain terms as best as reasonably possible. You made some excellent suggestions I did not think about before, which I implemented. For the others, please see my detailed reasoning below your points. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not really the audience, that would be The Rambling Man. You would seem to have addressed all of the issues they raised, it is now over to them to decide if you have done so to their satisfaction. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, your comment re holotype now being inconsistent with other dino FAs. Ha, you should grumble! In my Featured Topic Crécy campaign, I don't think that any two are wholly consistent: the joys of having a different set of FAC reviewers each time. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77

edit
How about something like "Bajadasaurus sported elongated pairs of spines running along the nape, extending as far as 58 cm (1 ft 11 in) towards the head of the animal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you show the cladogram from the 2019 study instead of the 2020 one?
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about inches, but I just relied on the conversion template here (I didn't even specify inches, it prefers this unit, and converts to feet only at larger values). I think this issue should be fixed in the template directly if we want to have any consistency between articles. I refrain from changing it manually because it would be inconsistent to other articles that use the template. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency among template inputs is not important, their primary purpose is accessibility, and 4 ft is more digestible than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the general rule we follow, I think we need to change the template accordingly, rather than fixing individual articles manually. I personally don't see any problem with using inches here, and if converting to feet gives me something like "19 ft 9 in" I really dislike it as it adds (in my eyes) unnecessary clutter. And I do feel that consistency between articles is very important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I switched to "58 cm (1.90 ft)" now instead of the mixed units (for which I don't even know how to tell the template to use them), is this acceptable as well? Another option would be to remove the conversion entirely, as it is not required for scientific articles according to WP:MOS. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all Americans can't understand metric system, me included. If you leave it as just 58 cm, then I don't know what you're saying. Also ft in is more understandable than decimal ft. It doesn't look cluttered to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you can certainly understand my annoyance and ignorance of a foreign unit system as well! Since we have only one such conversion in the article, I now think I could live with providing mixed units. However, after studying the template documentation for some time, I am not even sure the templates supports such a conversion? If you know how to do this, please feel free to change the conversion yourself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel

edit

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

  • The Paleoenvironment section is only one paragraph long. This is awfully short for an FA; I'm wondering if this could be upped to two? Surely there's info out there on the non-dinosaurian biota of the formation?
I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Early Cretaceous epoch" - While technically correct, this is rather unusual for dinosaur articles, perhaps change to "the Early Cretaceous period"
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus is classified as a member of the Dicraeosauridae," shouldn't this be "The genus is classified as a member of Dicraeosauridae," (without the "the")?
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its environment resembled a braided river system." Was it not actually a braided river system?
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the history section:

  • Perhaps spell out what CONICET means?
Done.
  • I wonder if the information about the formation could be located next to the information about the locality, and that about the museum next to the part in the lab. It feels a bit awkward right now.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinosaur and genus are not linked on first mention. Then again, I don't think that anything would be lost by removing them here.
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, as well as" I think an "and" is missing here
I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • Angular should be linked (perhaps also glossed, same with surangular)
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention keratin in the text?
Done.
  • "the probably sixth of Brachytrachelopan," The probable sixth?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

  • "which is named after the whip-like tail" Perhaps pluralize tail?
Corrected.
  • Link US and Tanzania
added.
I intentionally restricted myself to the genera recognized by the two studies discussed. Those two genera have been proposed as Dicraeosaurids by a single study but this does not seem to be widely accepted yet. I'm not sure if it will help the reader to include this detail that is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, these two taxa are rather tenuous. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues." This makes it sound like this study's definitive, but I doubt that this will be the last word on the subject, considering that Gallina et. al.'s topology had been recovered by many previous analyses. Perhaps add "in their study" after "Dicraeosauridae" to clarify?
Sure, this was not indented. Reworded.

And palaeobiology:

  • Optional: "soft part anatomy" -> "soft tissue anatomy"
Hmm, "soft-part anatomy" is the common term used in the field, and as long as readers can understand it, I would prefer to keep it.
  • "horn sheath" Shouldn't this be "horny sheath" like elsewhere, as these structures weren't horns?
Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gallina and colleagues suggested that the spines of Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus might have been 50% longer than indicated by their bony core." - Was there any particular reasoning for this figure? Since the previous examples were 100% and 25%, this just seems random at the moment.
They cite an upcoming paper, which has not been published yet. I adjusted the wording slightly, including the word "speculating".
  • "Due to its forward bent" -> "Due to its forward bend"?
Of course.
  • "how frequently teeth are shed and replaced" Perhaps specify that this is specifically about Bajadasaurus. Also, "are" should probably be changed to "were", given the context.
Added.
  • Optional: "in the dentary; these values are similar" -> "in the dentary. These values are similar"
Changed.

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is! Thanks for those throughout comments so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While still redlinks, the Quintuco and Picún Leufú Formations could probably be linked, given that Mendoza Group is, too.
Ok, linked.
Done.
  • "At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation by an unconformity (sedimentation hiatus) that has been dated at 134 mya (million years ago)." What exactly does the date here refer to, the Agrio Formation, Bajada Colorada, the unconformity or something else? Also, it seems like a unconformity's a boundary between layers, not a layer itself.
Very good point. I don't think you can directly "date" a unconformity in the first place. I guess those dates were rough estimates. I think it is better to remove that date, and did so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tetanurans" currently links to a genus of fly
fixed.
  • Link theropod
done.

And that's all from me! It's mostly just issues with links for this section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, you found a lot of ugly errors. All done now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I forgot about this! My only remaining criticism is that it could be made clear the angular's the upper hind mandibular bone and the surangular is the lower, but other than that, I have no qualms. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slate Weasel. Having thought about the remaining point, I would prefer to keep the explanation as concise as possible. The situation is actually a bit more complex; the angular overlaps the surangular, so it is not really "the lower" of these bones, it only looks like this in side view. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I'll support then. (I've never actually supported an FAC before, so hopefully this is the correct way to do it!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM

edit
Found just one, which I fixed. Note that there are a lot of dublicates just because of the cladograms.
  • Image captions, complete sentences need full stops.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see citations in numerical order e.g. "deinonychosaurians.[18][2] -> deinonychosaurians.[2][18]"
Puh, this would be quite a tedious effort, and after moving sections around we would have to do the same again. In principle, this is something that the wiki software should take care of, if we want it. I usually order them so that the most important (which the reader should look up first) comes first. I find this more practical than the alphabetical order, whose benefits seem to be limited to aesthetics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author initials are sometimes spaced, sometimes unspaced, I would expect that to be consistent.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any initials that are separated by spaces, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, G. S. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I could miss that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

Reading through now, please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "single large block of rock and bone wrapped in plaster." unless I'm much mistaken, it was extracted as a single block of rock and bone, and subsequently wrapped in plaster; suggest rewording; also, plaster is worth linking.
The plaster is indeed applied before extraction. You first dig around the block to separate it from surrounding rock as best as possible, and then you apply plaster to the top and sides of the block. When it is hard, the block can be heaved up (and separated from the basement) with heavy equipment, and the plaster will make sure it won't break apart. I reworded to make this a bit clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest scaling up the Nature figure; the map isn't legible. Also, wondering if it would be best cropped into two images, as the labels aren't very legible either.
I scaled it up. However, I would argue that with default thumb size, images in Wikipedia are almost never legible, you always have to click to read something (the other images in this article included). Splitting them up, maybe yes, but then they will take more space and I'm not sure where to put them! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel very strongly about it; most figures in science articles try to cram a lot into a small space, which is often not ideal for WP. Here, it's not enough of a problem for me to make a deal of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if "Bajada Colorada locality" is a phrase used in the sources; if not, you could omit "locality" and make the sentences about it more concise.
I'm worried that without "locality" it will be confused with the rock unit "Bajada Colorada Formation", so keeping "locality" improves clarity I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, the Nature figure and the reconstruction stack, leading to a very oddly placed section header; could the nature figure move (assuming you don't split it, as I suggest above)?
Moved it up, hope it is better know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that "bifurcated" needs clarification in the text, but as you've received a comment above asking you to put it in, I won't hold you to this.
removed to avoid excessive amounts of glosses; Wiktionary link should do the job. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "top view" have a specific meaning in paleontology? If so, it should be linked or explained; otherwise, "viewed from above" or similar would be more idiomatic, I think
"Top view" is some awkward term we "invented" to avoid the actual technical term, which is "dorsal view". I took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " featured a rearwards extending process" unless I'm mistaken, "process" here is not the common English usage, and should be linked or explained.
linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the first neck vertebra, the atlas, only the upper elements, the atlantal neurapophyses, are preserved"
Is this sentence unclear? I don't see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I intended to comment on this sentence and then fixed it myself, but neglected to remove this comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely out of curiosity; why do we refer to many traits as autapomorphies of the genus, rather than synapomorphies among the species in the genus? Not a problem, just curious if there's a technical subtlety I'm missing.
Because in paleontology, we usually work with genera as the terminal taxa. In dinosaurs, species can rarely differentiated, and are almost always somewhat controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the spines, you switch from singular to plural; " it was only comparable", "their base..." - be consistent.
It was actually speaking of the halves (plural) of the spine (singular). Reworded now to make that clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gallina and colleagues recognised seven additional dicraeosaurid genera" This raises more questions than it answers...I'm assuming they're doing this by reclassifying previously known fossils, but it's not obvious if they are instead describing them. Also, how many genera were previously recognized?
I added one more introductory sentence to make this clear. The number of genera varies from study to study, and in Gallina's study, its eight genera which they think belong with the group. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "advanced" as an explanation for "derived"; unless I'm much mistaken, folks try to avoid that term these days; how about "more recently diverging from a common ancestor", which is wordy but less prone to misinterpretation?
I don't like that either actually, took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "synapomorphies (anatomical features shared with other members of the group)" this isn't a sufficient explanation, surely; they're shared derived features?
Good catch. Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this analysis, Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues" confused by this too; I haven't read the sources, but relying on your versions of the cladograms, Bajadasaurus doesn't seem to be more basal in either; the 2020 tree simply includes more taxa, relative to which Bajadasaurus is basal; but unless those taxa are placed elsewhere in the 2019 tree, is it not incorrect to say that the trees are placing Bajadasaurus differently?
The source specifically says this. And Bajadasaurus is indeed more basal in the second cladogram I think, as it is basal to Suuwassea and Lingwulong, unlike in the first cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely a misreading on my part, apologies; I thought I had carefully compared the taxa used in each, but I did not, evidently. This is fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defer to others on this, but the classification section seems to me a little too heavy on background; not much of it is specifically discussing the placement of Bajadasaurus; it's instead a discussion of the phylogeny of the family.
There is nothing more to add, but we can shorten of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could look into shortening where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one sentence for now that could be regarded excessive detail unrelated to Bajadasaurus. I'm reluctant to remove more, because 1) I think the general information helps the reader as it provides background, and 2) a reviewer above requested that I add even more such stuff, which I declined; it appears to me, therefore, that opinions differ here. Let's wait what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acting as what was compared to a fence to deter predators" very awkward wording...how about "and could therefore have been a barrier to predators"?
Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me; I found this quite interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comprehensive review, and the copy edit (I adjusted a few of your edits, hope this is fine, if not lets discuss). Please let me know if there is anything else to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support, all my comments have been addressed. Your adjustments look fine. I have one suggestion to consider going forward, about the classification section, but that doesn't preclude a support from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • I see the "~140–134 Ma " claim in the lead and infobox, but those specific numbers don't appear in the body and don't appear to be sourced
Added to the body now. This is simply a translation of "late Berriasian to Valanginian", for readers unfamiliar with the geological time scale. The official numbers are published in a table [7], which we could cite, of course. However, we would need to cite that same source in literally every paleontology article, and I don't quite see the benefit. Please let me know what you think here; it will be easy for me to add this source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind; now found a direct source and added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: could you provide any more information on the original source for this?
Added detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, added. Thanks for the source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll be taking a look. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "sauropod family Dicraeosauridae." - MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues, three links in a row.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date" - Begs for an as of here, as a more complete skull of that type may one day be found.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sticks out to me that we're never given any indication of size. I understand that the skeleton is likely too fragmentary for the sources to be able to figure out overall length and whatnot, but do they at least give indications of how large the skull is or the capacity of the braincase?
Not explicitly stated in the reliable sources (discounting the children's book mentioned by the first review above). The paper gives dimensions of individual skull bones, but not sure if that helps. Their skull diagram includes a scale bar (we have that figure in the article), but again, deriving an overall skull length measurement from that would already be WP:OR I think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This pair of rod-like elements measures 58 cm (23 in) in length " - Is this measurement the length from the vertebrae base to the end of the spine, or the length of the rod-like elements from the split to the tip? At least to me, the phrasing seems to leave both interpretations open.
Specified, it is the neural spine at a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is considered self-proving, but it seems to be that several of those clades in the infobox need citations.
Hm, no other article about life forms does this as far as I know. Changing the templates (which then would affect hundreds of articles) is above my ability in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Gallina et al. attempt to determine if the specimen was adult or juvenile?
Probably adult given the fused neurocentral sutures, but not mentioned in the paper, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it looks okay to me, although I'm very much a nonexpert. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Let me know if there is anything else I can improve. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, 1b seems to be met from a nonexpert's perspective as well. Didn't check for the other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment - @FunkMonk, Esculenta, The Rambling Man, Nikkimaria, and Dunkleosteus77: Anything further to add? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review, so I refrained from doing a full FAC review, but I think the article looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crispclear

edit

I didn't check the sources to see if they were accurately cited or if the article complied with the house style, but it is generally well-written, comprehensible to a lay reader, and seems about as comprehensive as it can be for a few old bones. It does track away to more general theorizing in places but I think that's helpful for context. Crispclear (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • @The Rambling Man: can I get your opinion on this oppose, please? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently "I accept your opinion, but I don't think I can add any more parentheses without cluttering the text too much" means no further action will be taken to address my actionable oppose, so it's still an oppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider this oppose actionable, because 1) TRM stated that he himself thinks that wiki links are enough in some difficult cases, but that "rules are rules". It does not make much sense to me to make a change that we both think will not necessarily improve the article. 2) I don't think that the article is actually violating this rule; the rule says "explain when feasible", and so I did, but explaining "phylogenetic analysis" (a central term in biology) would necessitate a whole new sentence of its own, which clutters the article to such a degree that I am likely to violate other rules instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An example: holotype is used and linked but there's no explanation as to what a holotype is. To find out I have to click to another article. Also, it's not reasonable to allow "central terms" in one particular subject a free pass to go unexplained, but not in other subjects I'm afraid. Especially when they are far more likely to be widely unknown in challenging fields like biology. Either this nuance of MOS is enforced, as it has been previously, or it is not enforced, in which case it should be acknowledged that that is now the case for all other candidates. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed exactly what wiki links are for. And same story with holotype; explaining it will get wordy, and no other dinosaur FA I can think of tries to explain it. It is also not pertinent to understand this term in order to understand the article; you just have to know it is a category of specimens. It is really a side note added for completeness sake, and providing extensive explanation here would draw the attention away from the important bits of the article. Consequently, people might argue that with such excessive explanations, the article will fail, or at least not fully comply with FA criterion 1.a "well-written"; at least I would see it this way. Hence I consider the oppose not actionable. I'm happy to take suggestions how to word an explanation concisely so that it is in adequate proportion to the significance of the information it aims to explain; but at the moment I don't see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's definitely actionable. You (like me) are choosing not to action it. I understand that the "well-written" criterion conflicts with this (I have no idea how a cricket FAC would ever pass nowadays), but I don't make the rules, it's just important that they are followed evenly across FACs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth: It doesn't look like TRM and myself are arriving at any resolution in this discussion here. Would you please take a look again? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree. I'm looking for standards to be consistent at FAC, so I will be very interested to see how this goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a doctrinal discussion and probably has wider significance than just the award of FA to this article, but my 2p-worth is that you have to strike a balance between explaining every slightly unusual term and allowing the writing to flow. I think this article gets it about right. It's fairly stodgy subject matter for non-specialists and, with the best will in the world, most people are going to gloss over the majority of it without worrying about holotype, gracile, etc. Specialists, of course, should already be au fait with the terminology. Crispclear (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I reviewed this, I thought this was an extremely understandable article, and that the writer did an excellent job in many places of balancing linking/glossing with not making the text so cluttered as to be hard to read. I understand why TRM has concerns, but I personally think this meets that criteria. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and others think it's fine too, but as I've been informed, it's not a vote. So while your personal opinion is interesting here, this is about my opinion, and an actionable oppose based on standards set earlier this year still stands. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article does a good job of writing clearly without excessive jargon. I respect TRM's work but I increasingly think these opposes are WP:POINTy and should be disregarded by the coordinators. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for the personal attack. This isn't about "pointedness" this is about consistency. If it's expected of some articles to explain plain English dictionary definitions and opposition is maintained as a result, there's even more reason to object to the tacit acceptance of highly technical words that aren't used in plain English (such as holotype). Once the standard has been set by a co-ord and then steadfastly maintained by the other two co-ords, I don't understand why this article with its unexplained and context-free use of jargon (albeit linked) should be exempted from that standard. Or perhaps someone can explain the difference? Consensus of others certainly didn't carry any weight previously, just the actionable oppose, of which this still remains one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, I don't think your nomination established that technical words need to be explained with plain English dictionary definitions or that unexplained jargon should be avoided. If you didn't withdraw that nom, it could have very well passed without adhering to those "expectations", which would have suggested the opposite is the expectation. Similarly, if you strike your oppose for this article and it passes, it would help establish that the opposite is expected in FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I disagree. The nomination had nine supports and one oppose based on that very issue. One of the coords refused to promote it because of one "actionable" oppose. It was not going to pass, especially when another reviewer came along asking to have terms like "equalise" explained. Funny how that attracted so much attention and the nine supports were completely ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, as this is a technical article, it is necessarily littered with technical terms. For example, there are eight (!) unexplained technical terms in the very first sentence of the lead alone. How would that first sentence look if I would explain all of them? Explaining all terms in this article is entirely unreasonable, although I did my best to explain as many of the crucial ones as possible (including most of the examples listed by TRM). Please, let us return to common sense now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for common sense. But we either apply the same standards to all candidates (technical articles or otherwise) or we don't. Holding less technical articles to higher standards makes absolutely no sense at all. If anything it should be the other way round. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is getting silly. We can't split hairs forever in a single FAC if we think the general standards are inconsistent, or if we have been wronged in another FAC. That is pretty much WP:point. It needs to be a central discussion, not at a specific FAC. But in the end, it's a judgment call, and there will never be one way that everyone will agree on, leaving it up to the individual writers. I don't think we should be too rigid, and my impression is that TRM doesn't either, but feels it must be enforced elsewhere because it was demanded of him in one FAC, so now we're stuck in limbo until that is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really straightforward: I'm just looking for consistency. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wretchskull

edit

I have kept an eye on the article since January. I have some concerns about the technicality of the topic, but with all the improvements that it has received, I believe it deserves to be a FA. Excellent job! Wretchskull (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: will this be closed soon? Therapyisgood (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus

edit

@Jens Lallensack:Regarding the technical terms that The Rambling Man commented about, perhaps would footnotes like these on Huaynaputina help when you can't explain the concept in-text w/o a long digression? Otherwise, going through WP:WIAFA top-to-bottom:

  • 1a: Assuming that "the CONICET" is the correct formulation, it looks like the prose fits.
  • 1b: Seems like all important aspects [that we can infer] are covered and there is some context too.
  • 1c: Seems like a very large proportion of the (sparse) research on this dinosaur that shows on Google Scholar has been used, so I'd say it fits too. Inlines used throughout.
  • 1d: As far as I can tell this fits.
  • 1e: Nothing problematic in this regard, here.
  • 1f: Dropped a couple of sentences into Google, and nothing came up that might be a copyvio.
  • 2: With the caveat that I am not going to memorize the entire WP:MOS, it looks like the parts specifically mentioned in WP:WIAFA fit.
  • 3: Seems to fit, based on the images I checked.
  • 4: Fits.

Thus a slightly conditional support from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regarding the use of footnotes to address TRM's oppose, I have these thoughts:
  • Footnotes, like links, require a click to access the information. So I wonder if they would fulfill TRM requirements, as he complains about having to click on the link. And because of this reason, footnotes seem redundant unless you print the article out.
  • Footnotes may occasionally be useful, but are not suited to explain every term (which is what is demanded here). The lead of your example (Huaynaputina) has two terms explained with footnotes, but I count more than 10 additional unexplained terms. I think nobody wants a footnote list that might eventually rival the length of the main text of the article. For this reason I consider TRM's oppose simply not actionable (because what he demands is clearly not wanted, not even by himself). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a coordinator decision here? It is pretty odd that this particular article should suffer from being the battleground for a wider issue. Not sure why paleontology articles are always the ones being singled out, ship articles (as well as many other kinds of articles), such as the current FAC Deutschland-class battleship, have exactly the same problem, but it is rarely demanded that every single technical naval term is explained in-text. Casemates? Embrasures? Water-tube boilers? Reichstag? All these linked terms are probably not understandable to layreaders. Should they all be glossed? Probably not. But following the logic here (and the course of action through many months now across FAC), if this FAC fails, Jens Lallensack should immediately move on to the ship article and oppose until all these terms are glossed, which is ridiculous. So please, let's give it a rest, The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild should continue this battle on a talk page instead of in FAC space. Otherwise this cycle of tit-for-tat opposes will only continue to disrupt FAC. It is now clear as day that this is a WP:point issue; TRM doesn't actually want these changes, but he wants Gog to admit he was wrong for opposing his football FAC for lack of glossing.[8][9] Until Gog budges, it'll just continue, and the rest of us will remain hostages (I know Jens is feeling pretty drained by this situation, let's not drive more content writers away). We get it, I have sympathy for the case, but it's getting disruptive. Lets move on. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This case is probably so exceptional that I'll take the liberty to ping the rest of the coordinators, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking anyone to "admit" anything, I want consistency to be applied to each and every candidate. Simple. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any FA about a highly technical topic that explains all technical terms, as is demanded here. So far with your consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the very definition of WP:point. "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't understand what you've said really. I noted a bunch of things I didn't understand and felt needed explanation within the article, just as was demanded of a highly non-technical article. I asked for exactly the same thing. I didn't ask for anyone to admit anything. I haven't read the battleship article yet, but if, as we have been required to do, jargon and technical terms needs to be explained within the article, then so be it. We can't just have people enforcing MOS selectively on one type of article and not another. And no, I can't get blocked for opposing a FAC. That's just stupid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you only started on this crusade after Gog's oppose at this soccer FAC.[10] In that FAC, you said "I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind. I won't be adding a glossary of terms for basic English here". So you yourself refused to do the glossing, while complaining it wasn't done elsewhere, and withdrew the nom because you refused to gloss "away goals". Jump a few months forward, and now you're opposing for the exact same thing you withdrew for to prove a WP:point. Interestingly, I see you've nominated the withdrawn FAC again (1997 Football League First Division play-off Final) and "away goal" is still not glossed. So much for "consistency". If I was a total WP:dick, I'd go and oppose your nom right away for that reason alone, but hey, that would be silly and WP:pointy, right? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. You'd be the dick, as you said. By all means disrupt the place, I've got better things to do. And please, I suggest you stop bullying me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is bullying anyone, and I'm not going to oppose. But I'm simply asking for consistency from the guy who wrote "I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English" at this own FAC, and still refuses to explain the very term the last debacle revolved around... You very well know I have been cooperative when it came to your demands in the past, so these claims of "bullying" are just preposterous and uncalled for, you must know that. I have absolutely nothing against you or your article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're bullying me. It's clear and overt. Just stop it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I think we need some grown-ups in the room now. Coordinators? FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, someone to stop your incessant bullying. Talk about driving people away, good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there seems to be a lull now, perhaps we could maintain the cease-fire while I wade through all the commentary above... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting something together, bear with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your patience... From the top:
  • Do we have consensus to promote? Not as such, as we have a carefully considered oppose, which focusses on terms difficult to comprehend without using links.
  • Is the oppose actionable? Evidently it is in part, as much of it has already been actioned. Most of the remainder though I think is, if not non-actionable, then at least detrimental to the overall readability of the article if actioned. BTW, I note that the arguments against relying on links is that one has to click on them to get to the article in question, then return to the original article, which is disruptive to the reading experience. As someone who generally reads articles on a laptop and has Navigation Popups enabled in Preferences, I find I generally get all I need from hovering over the linked term, which is no disruption; granted, I'm not sure there is such a possibility when reading on a mobile device. Anyway, taking these terms one by one:
    • gracile -- actioned
    • Braided river -- I think based on context and the general term "braided" this should be okay
    • stage -- I don't see that the actual meaning is vital given the context
    • Holotype -- removed
    • phylogenetic analysis -- removed
    • specific name -- I think based on context this should be okay
    • braincase -- I really think this should be okay for most readers
    • prefrontal -- annoying that hovering doesn't take you direct to the link but I think context should do the trick, and if "orbit" is understandable, "prefrontal" shouldn't be so bad
    • flagellicaudatans -- actioned
    • surangular bone -- this just seems to be a particular bone with a particular odd-sounding name; even going to the linked definition doesn't say much more than that, I think context is sufficient here
    • features -- seems clear enough from the text now
  • Moving on to two other phrases that caused issue...
    • "Long bifurcated neural spines were a common feature of the group"... TRM is not the only reviewer concerned by "bifurcated", Gog raised it (and who said TRM and Gog would never agree on anything?!) as did Dunkleosteus, an editor well-versed in dinosaur articles. Jens I think you said you'd tweak this but it doesn't look like it has been unless I missed something. It happens that I know the term even as a non-expert, but only because it's used for some medical instruments I'm familiar with in RL -- I think TRM is justified in finding it a bit much for the lead, and would recommend using Gog's suggestion of "two-pronged" in its place. By all means keep "bifurcated" in the main body (perhaps with "two-pronged" in parentheses), you might also mention it and link it in the specimens image, so people can see what's meant as well.
    • "Cladogram by Gallina and colleagues"... No I wouldn't have a clue what cladogram means on its own either but given it's used as an introduction to a diagram I think it's fine, does it really matter what it actually means when we can see what it is?
  • So where does that leave us? If the "bifurcated" were actioned per above and as I think it should have been based on earlier responses, I would find TRM's oppose to have been dealt with in a reasonable manner and the article be ready for promotion (subject to my usual pre-closure checks on words to watch, duplinks, all paras ending in citations, etc, etc). I don't know if the aforementioned will satisfy TRM who, despite accusations of pointyness, is I think genuinely out for consistency, as evidenced by the fact that he's commented on many articles of late and been prepared to support most for promotion in the end, but at the same time I think FunkMonk is on the money when he suggests we have to move on, apply common sense and avoid being absolutely rigid, whether the subject is biology or sport. I'd expect us to look at TRM's re-nom of the article that kicked this off (pun unintended, honestly), and all other FACs for that matter, in the same light. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, thanks for picking this up. Regarding the issue with "bifurcated": Yes, I did explain it originally, but removed that explanation again when I got a counter from user:Varamonde (their review above) saying that this term should go without explanation. For my part, I am a non-native speaker, and for me, "bifurcated" is much more familiar than "two-pronged" (for which I needed a dictionary). We have many non-native readers, especially when it comes to dinosaur articles. But finally, I'm fine with any solution, and I just don't know what terms may be unfamiliar to native speakers. Note that user:Dunkleosteus was actually not concerned with the term if I understood correctly; he raised a different issue about the same sentence (which I fixed). So I did not have a consensus amongst reviewers I could act on. I now re-added "two-pronged" in brackets, but only in the lead, and hope that this will be acceptable to everybody. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that "surangular bone" is in fact explained by the phrase "In the hind part of the lower jaw". We can't easily get more precise than that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer who first raised the bifurcated issue, I am happy that my suggestion re its appearance in the lead has been adopted. I would prefer a similar treatment in the main body (' "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers'), but do not see this as a fatal flaw and so continue to support promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now added the explanation to the main body as well. I really don't care much about this, just trying to make everybody happy as best as possible. Hoping that we can conclude these discussions now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I also need to add that I didn't understood that TRM was concerned with "bifurcated" in the first place (I thought he was more concerned with "neural spines"). So apologies for not taking this one seriously enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all Jens, I might be wrong about where the main concern was -- I considered "neural spine" too but I think we hear things like "neural pathways" on TV occasionally so I think we could leave that alone, whereas "bifurcated" seems very specialised even though I knew the term myself. Anyway now that you've acted on the suggestions above, I'll try to get on with my final checks soonish. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (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/Bajadasaurus/archive1&oldid=1022343024"