Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilophosaurus/archive1

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) 13:29, 25 April 2018 [1].

---

Dilophosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a dinosaur that was made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, and is therefore one of our most popular articles about a dinosaur genus. The movie also took great "artistic" liberties with the dinosaur, so this article is a good place to set the record straight. Most of the other dinosaurs that featured in the movie are already FAs. I think this is a pretty definitive account, which may educate people who come here by way of the movie about what the real animal was like. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Inconsistent use of Location (11 with; 4 without); Holtz, T. R. Jr. (2012); Paul, G. S. (2010); Glut, D. F. (1997); Gay, R. (2005).

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Harshbarger, J. W.; Repenning, C. A.; Irwin, J. H. (1957). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

Don't know how to find it, and anyhow, if I add it to one, wouldn't I have to add it to all? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• It would be kinda nice, but not at all required, to use |display-authors= for cases like "Xing, L.; Bell, P. R.; Rothschild, B. M." [B.M.! What an unfortunate set of initials. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What does "display-authors" do? FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The preview says one of the sources has double "pages" fields, but doesn't specify which. Maybe your script could show which sources that have duplicate fields, Lingzhi? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It was just removed with this[2] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Duncan, J. (2007). Missing Publisher;

Whoops, added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll try to see what error msg you were looking at earlier... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose, which is excellent here. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Excellent article, but a few nitpicks to show I've read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I know, we still expect multiple refs to be in numerical order

Haven't seen it brought up during source reviews before, though? Is there an easy way to do this? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not AFAIK, I always do it because I've been told to before, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• The two most complete of these were collected in 1942, with the most complete later made—since it's in the lead, I'd try to avoid the repetition of "most complete"

Said "best preserved" the first time instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• even thermoregulation as well—lose "as well"

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• The high degree of pain it must have experienced in multiple locations for long durations—speculative to say the least. Many fractures and other injuries heal without long-term pain

Yeah, the source says this, though: "It is also a testament to the hardiness of an animal that doubtlessly experienced an agonizingly long duration (or durations) of high degrees of pain in multiple locations." I've changed "must" to "might" for now, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the author is speculating, rather than you, doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion. Also "might" doesn't justify "shows". I'd be inclined to either lose the sentence altogether or make it clear that it's the authors' speculation rather than a hard fact. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Taphonomy—arguably the least inviting heading I've ever seen. Surely there must be something more intelligible?

Hmm, not sure what that would be, it is a very specific term that doesn't translate easily without using a whole sentence. I could also just remove the section header entirely? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• could have been venomous like that of the Komodo dragon.—this analogy is highly problematic, and the source is almost certainly wrong on this, see Komodo dragon#Saliva, Komodo dragon#Antibacterial immune factor and Komodo dragon#Venom

I commented on that here[3], maybe say "like what has been proposed/claimed for the Komodo dragon" or something? I've done that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the dubious nature of that claim, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to even mention the lizard. I'll leave that to you.

I'm not convinced on either the pain or Komodo sentences, but I'll let you decide on those and support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give attribution for the pain sentence, and maybe wait it out on the Komodo dragon to see if it is brought up again... I would prefer if I could just mention the Gila monster instead, as Crichton actually does in the book, but that's of course not what the geologist does for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

Slender and lightly built - if you're describing something as lightly built...is slender redundant?

Good question, the source (Naish) says "was a lightly built, slender theropod". I'm thinking slender describes the shape, while "lightly built" refers to mass? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually strike that - my initial thinking was that lightly build would automotically imply slender...but then I thought of hang gliders and Quetzalcoatlus... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nothing else to complain about on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry for not stopping by earlier but I'd prefer to see a further comprehensive review here before we promote -- LittleJerry, perhaps you'd take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs a source and image review in any case, it has been listed[4] for a long time. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review: All good. Sorry but I don't do comprehensive reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Sorry this is taking longer than expected, but here are some initial comments:

• Another species from China, D. sinensis, --> Another species, D. sinensis from China,

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• described as a medium-sized theropod --> theropod should be linked here, and delinked in next sentence

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• though small compared to .. compared to --> perhaps rephrase to avoid quick repetition?

Reworded the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• about 6.03 --> that's pretty accurate, no need for "about"

Removed. It's precise, but not necessarily accurate, as such measurements can only ever be estimations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• pleurocoels (depressions on the sides) and centrocoels --> links?

Nothing on Wikipedia. Would Wiktionary suffice? I've added a couple of links to there for what could be found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• (articular processes) --> that didn't explain enough for me

Explained a bit more. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• prezygapophyses --> which is what?

Explained in the text I mentioned above, if that suffices. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• stout processes for attachment .. stout epipodials, and the ulna (lower arm bone) was stout and straight, with a stout --> stout repetition

That's what the source says, I guess something like "robust" could be used instead, but I'm afraid if any meaning would be lost. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• peduncle --> link or explanation

Explained, if it is any clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• off the ground.[2][12][11] --> I was once told the references should be in order (I've not yet been able to find this rule written down, so I'm ok for you to ignore)

Yeah, I never saw any guidelines for this, so I usually don't mess with it. Would be good if there was some automated tool for it, though... FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• UCMP --> better to introduce acronym at beginning of section

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• seeing most of the material in western Europe --> bit too mysterious for me

Simplified sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• American Paleontologist --> American paleontologist

Ugh, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• described by Welles in 1971 were all on the same level, and were described --> two described close together

Said "reported" the first time. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

More later Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see to these shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit more:

• salamanders[64] the frog --> missing comma

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Shake N Bake" theropod --> link?

Removed the mention, it has not been named yet. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Dinnebiton --> just checking: is this perhaps a Dinnebitodon

Yep, same formation, it was old text, so probably an old mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Black Publishers LTD --> Ltd

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• feathered?-evidence --> feathered? – Evidence

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Lockley, M.; Matsukawa, M.; Jianjun, Li --> inconsistent with initials

Abbreviated. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• would be good to have archive links for the web sources

Added to the most important ones. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Rothschild, B., Tanke, D. H., and Ford, T. L., 2001 --> publisher needs a location, isbn

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Lamanna, M. C.; Holtz, T. R. Jr; P., Dodson --> don't think that 3rd author name is ok

Swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace --> if I'm not mistaken all other journal titles have lowercase instead of camel

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I fixed a few isbn formatting issues

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I will do a source spotcheck next. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Source spot check: as a layman I found this too hard to do. For instance the long first paragraph has no references until the end, and then four at once. So concentrating solely on single sentence, single refs: 21 41 52 57 are all fine.

The citations have been grouped near the end because different citations often support different statements within a single sentence. So not sure how else to do this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• ref 47 says "multiple authors". I can't see p.216 unfortunately but from the index I infer it is Paul, which is what you have in your text "Paul also depicted Dilophosaurus bouncing"

It is a weird chapter with no credited author, only images by different artists with captions. Should I infer that the author of these captions is the editor Paul? FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A Google Scholar check reveals key articles have all been used as sources.

Comparing the article's content to other FA dinosaur articles I, as a layman, do not see any holes in coverage. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, answered more above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Outriggr

• In response to the FAC talk page's desire for source reviews, I thought I'd try to offer something.
  • Two items are sourced to "Lamanna, M. C.; Holtz, T. R. Jr; Dodson, P. (1998)", which is 70+ pages of small-print abstracts. I am not sure it is reasonable to not cite page numbers, given that we are dealing with technical claims; only the entire document is cited.

Not sure what happened there, the source was added before I worked on the article, and since is a conference talk abstract, I assumed the conference posters had been given as the page numbers or something. But I've now added the page numbers from the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • I do not see that "Nash Dinosaur Track Site and Rock Shop" is reliable for the purpose for which it is used.

Removed, it was a remnant from before I worked on the article, and supports some info (now removed too) not stated in the other sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • It's not clear from the page itself that Welles is speaking in "Dilophosaurus, the actor" (or where the author given came from). Now I see that the intro page says Welles narrates it all. Could this be clarified in the note or somehow.

I had added the editor of the website as the author, but maybe I should add Welles instead, or in addition? I've tried listing them both now. It's kind of a tricky situation, as I don't know how else to add this information to a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Fn 75 (Altimari) does not support the sentence preceding it, which for some reason has four footnotes. It only supports the simple assertion that the dinosaur was named state dino. It's almost void of info, that particular source.

It was added by a drive-by user after I was finished writing the article, so I just left it in after I had added more detailed sources. But I now see that has made the first source redundant, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Fn 77 (Stone) does support the sentence mentioned above, and it seems like those four sources, some fairly low-quality, could be moved to the parts of the para they support, and any redundant ones (Altimari) deleted.

Removed Altimari, but the remaining citations are used to support different parts within the same sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Fn 68 (Hamblin) needs quotes and italics to distinguish the long title (chapter?) and the book.

Formatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Welles 1971 not formatted.

Formatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • "The great rift valleys of Pangea in eastern North America" appears to be a book, but is formatted like a journal. "Weems" appears to be chapter 18 of volume 2.

Reformatted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Does an article with this quality of sources need to resort to "theropoddatabase.blogspot.ca"--they refer to themselves as an amateur paleontologist.

It is only there to support the statement that D. "breedorum" is a nomen nudum, because though this is implied by the Gay source (by writing "breedorum" with citation marks), it is not directly stated. So the blog isn't used for any controversial claim, and Mortimer is actually well-known within dinosaur palaeontology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop there for now. If someone watching this would like to confirm with me off-page that this type of review constitutes a decent "source review", I can continue, though I expect there isn't much to say about the remainder of the sources, which are almost all academic publications. Outriggr (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters in this particular case, but so far this is one of the more in-depth source reviews I've gotten. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's good! Here are one or two more comments:

• The ISBN for "Dinosaurs, the encyclopedia" is the same as for Holtz et al. I found this out in the process of trying to capitalize this title to something like "Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia", which is probably more correct.

Oh, I guess you mean Glut and Holtz rather than two times Holtz? Not sure what happened, but I added another ISBN for Glut from Amazon:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Gay, R. (2005)" repeats the title as a result of being one of those complicated chapter-in-book types. Needs formatting.

Fixed, not sure how that happened... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Curtis, K., and Padian, K. (1999)" and "Gay, R. (2010)" are not formatted.

Fixed, turned out the latter is some kind of weird print on demand book... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I spot-checked journal citations for accuracy. All were fine. The use of sources looks fine, but I did not dig deeply into source verification during this. Nice work, anyway. Outriggr (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note (2)

@Edwininlondon and Outriggr: just to confirm, are your comments satisfactorily resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I had forgotten to express my support explicitly. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Outriggr (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Ian Rose and Sarastro1. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Leaning OpposeComments: I was looking at this with a view to promote but noticed a few things that could be ironed out. As it stands, I'm inclined to oppose on prose for now. I've got as far as the History of discovery section, but I would recommend that someone gives this a bit of a polish. I will copy-edit as I go, but I think more eyes would be beneficial. However, I fully expect to support this once a little more work has been done. Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that it was already copy-edited by Corinne (who might want to chime in when it comes to specific choices), but of course your issues might also have to do with jargon. I've answered below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I notice that several of the sets of references are not in ascending numerical order. Was this a deliberate choice?

Deliberate in the sense that it does not appear to be required that they are in any particular order. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, Lusotitan kindly did it with this[6] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• "he moved the species to the new genus Dilophosaurus": I appreciate the meaning, but "moved the species" sounds a little like a physical act and could lead to a little misunderstanding. Is there another expression that could be used for the general reader?

Changed to assigned, though "move" is common enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity (it may be a convention in these articles) why do we start the lead with the information on the discovery, and only describe the actual animal in the second paragraph?

This is a convention of other featured dinosaur articles which I simply followed. Can't say whether it's good or bad, but it has been accepted many times. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Dilophosaurus was one of the first big predatory dinosaurs, though it was smaller than some later theropods.": There's something about this that doesn't quite work but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's because the first time I read it, I thought it meant the first to be discovered. Maybe that's me, but given that we spend a while talking about it's discovery, maybe more of a distinction is needed, to make clear that this is discussing an evolutionary timeline. (The same issue crops up in the main body)

Changed to "earliest". FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Dilophosaurus has been described as a medium-sized theropod.": Obvious question: who described it? And the same for "it has been described as comparable to a brown bear in size". (And that's two "described as" in the first three sentences of this section)

Removed the first "described", as it is simply a fact. The second claim is more subjective, but non-controversial claims are usually not attribute din text in description sections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• "A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus and Liliensternus has markings around the belly and feet that have been interpreted as feather impressions by the Polish paleontologist Gerard Gierliński in 1996 and supported by the Czech paleontologist Martin Kundrát in 2004." Aside from this being a scarily long sentence, we have an odd clash of tenses "have been interpreted ... in 1996". I think we should either lose the date, or have this as "were interpreted ... in 1996". And I think the sentence could be split.

I have shortened the sentence and changed tense, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Others, such as the American paleontologists Martin Lockley and colleagues in 2003 and Anthony J. Martin and colleagues in 2004, have concluded that the markings are sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved, while the latter noted that this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker bore feathers": And this seems to veer all over. The main thrust of this sentence is that they don't think it had feathers... but the sentence concludes that it might still have had feathers. This is confusing the sentence a little. Also, the construction "... and colleagues" makes this harder to understand. Is there a way to rewrite this a little?

They rule out that the impressions are of feathers, but note that this does not mean the animal itself had feathers. The only alternative to "colleagues" is "et al.", which would be gibberish to most readers, or to list all authors, which would take a lot of space. But I have reworded the sentence entirely, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• "... the third was so eroded that it consisted only of vertebra fragments ... but the third skeleton was almost gone" Why are we effectively repeating the same information in close proximity?

This is because the source doesn't specify that the last specimen wasn't collected, though that it was happened, so this is to imply that it wasn't collected, without saying so directly (similar to how the source puts it). FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Glancing ahead, I notice that eleven out of the last twelve paragraphs start "In [year]". Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this? Last paragraphs from the bottom of the article and up, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've now randomised the placement of the dates further, is this what you had in mind, Sarastro1? FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay here. Real life and all that. I've struck the leaning oppose as my concerns were mainly addressed. I notice that Victoria has been looking too, which can only be good. I still plan to return to this, which should be in the next day or two now that I have a little more time, but I wouldn't oppose promotion on prose grounds. And if I've not returned soon, this review should not stand in the way of promotion. Sarastro (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, good to see you back, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Victoria

Lay reader here, but I like dinosaurs and have always been interested in those sites in Utah. Will take a read through and post comments. It might take a few days. Please don't hesitate to ping if I get sidetracked. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, non-expert reviews are always welcome! Will have a look at the points soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Description

• "A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus was interpreted as having feather impressions around the belly and feet by the Polish paleontologist Gerard Gierliński in 1996 and the Czech paleontologist Martin Kundrát in 2004. The markings were instead interpreted as sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved by the American paleontologists Martin Lockley and colleagues in 2003 and Anthony J. Martin and colleagues in 2004, but the latter writers noted that this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker bore feathers." >> awkward construction and hard to parse. Can this be summarized to say that paleontologists theorize it may have been feathered based on the resting trace of a similar theropod, yet they disagree whether the markings are artifacts or not?

It's a bit more complicated than that. The first two researchers mentioned think the traces are from feathers, the two latter ones mentioned think the traces are not from feathers, but one of the two latter writers says that even if the traces are not of feathers, Dilophosaurus could still have had feathers. Admittedly it doesn't really help that I add in authors and dates to the mix (or that separate writers mentioned in the same sentence are called Martin)... I've tried to simplify it by removing dates and names, and moving them to the ichnology section instead. That doesn't exactly make the ichnology section more readable, but I cut some tangential text out from there instead. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• pleurocoels & centrocoels and many many more terms throughout the second & third paras in the first "Description" section>> are there links for any of these? As a lay reader, I'm really lost.

Nothing on Wikipedia, but I've now added Wiktionary links, I think it's all that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I realized as I read on that probably we don't have links, so no problem. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Skull

• looks fine. I made a couple of minor edits there.

History of discovery

• looks fine. I've made a few minor copyedits. Fascinating read. Back later.

Formerly assigned species

• "Welles died in 1997, before he could name this supposed new dinosaur, but the idea that the two were separate genera has generally been ignored or forgotten since.[3]" >> does this refer to another dinosaur altogether. I'm wondering whether it belongs here, but these sections are difficult to get through for a lay reader.

That entire paragraph is about a single specimen, the large one found in 1964. Welles initially thought it was Dilophosaurus, but considered it a new species in 1984, though he never came around to naming it. Most other researchers just think it's a large specimen of Dilophosaurus, though an amateur later did give it a name in a questionable publication. With this explanation in mind, is it easier to follow, or do you think something should be changed? I've changed the paragraph so it refers to the specimen as "the 1964 specimen" throughout, which might make it easier to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Much better to refer to the 1964 specimen. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ichnology

• Lost me - will return to this section.

Ichnotaxonomy is notoriously complicated, sadly I had to cover it here, since so many tracks have been attributed to the animal... I have added a short introduction: "Various ichnotaxa (taxa based on trace fossils) have been attributed to Dilophosaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, realized that, and better now. I read through a second time with a little more success. My feeling is that it's very nicely done and comprehensive for the reader who dips in and out of sections and wants this specific information and the casual reader is free to skip through. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the papers cited is called "Crouching Theropods in Taxonomic Jungles"[7], which I now realise of course alludes to a situation which is confusing to even experts... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Third para "In 2006, ... " includes comma after date, which is inconsistent. Because the prose is dense and a difficult read for a lay reader, might be better to have the commas after dates throughout.

I usually follow dates with a comma, but they were removed during the copy-edit I requested, so I assumed it was for good reason. Should I ask the copy-editor about the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother. No need to further complicate. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Classification

• "Though Welles originally thought Dilophosaurus to be a megalosaur in 1954, he realized this to be incorrect in 1970 after discovering it had crests, making it at the time the only theropod with such a feature.[13][17]" > difficult to parse first sentence in a section. Suggest something like this: "Welles originally thought Dilophosaurus a megalosaur, but in 1970 after the discovery that it is the only theropod with crests, he revised his opinion."

I basically took your wording, though I cut more out (it is already stated earlier that it was the only known theropod with crests) and retained the 1954 date. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Motion

• trackway SGDS.18.T1 > where is the trackway? Just to satisfy my own curiosity

It's in Utah, as mentioned at the bottom of the ichnology section and the caption of the image of the crouching dinosaur. Should it be mentioned again in the motion section? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I added "Utah" in front of "trackway" since it's a couple of sections apart, but it's not a big deal and feel free to revert. I'm happy with the article and have to be gone for the next day or so. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Feeding and diet

• No problems here. I've made a few minor copyedits

Crest function

• Interesting. No problems

Development

• No problems. Made a few minor copyedits

Paleopathology

• Interesting! No problems here.

Paleoecology

• Good. I made a small edit to tighten.

Cultural significance

• Interesting! Made a couple of small edits to tighten

Lead

• I always read the lead at the end. It's a nice summary of the article.

Looks good. I'm really enjoying this read. Hope to finish later today. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: am reading through section by section, making a few copyedits (feel free to revert), and a couple of comments. I need to stop now and hope to get back later today or tomorrow. My sense is that this meets the FAC criteria; there are a few prose issues that I'm happy to copyedit as I go along or bring here, but unless I run into something awful, I think this is fine. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, though I feel as though I've just been through a crash course in paleontology. I cannot imagine the work it's been through - so kudos. Whenever I'm next in Arizona or Connecticut I'd like to visit one of the sites. A side note is that there are some difficult verb constructions - I kept wanting to change to present tense but had to remind myself that this animal lived almost 200 million years ago. That, combined with the recent past discoveries and more recent research makes it difficult, but you've done a nice job. I've made a few minor tweaks along the way, but please feel free to change anything - very much out of my subject are on this. Nice work! Victoriaearle (tk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it can be hard to know what will be gibberish to layreaders in such articles, so it is extremely important to get layman reviews! I'd like to visit such a fossil site too, but the closest to where I live is the one in Sweden. I've been wanting to work on this article for years, but it seemed like an overwhelming task because of the extensive literature, but at least that means a lot is known about the animal, compared to many other fossils. Perhaps it can be TFA when Jurassic World 2 comes out... FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment

• Second lead sentence: 1940 three skeletons were found in northern Arizona. The two best preserved were collected in 1942; the most complete was made the holotype specimen of a new species of the genus Megalosaurus, named M. wetherilli by Samuel P. Welles in 1954. Can this be reorganised. Found vs collected, "became" rather than "was made". Small point, article is v. good. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, had to go back in and remove a duplink anyway... Not entirely sure what you mean by "Found vs collected", but I changed "found" to "discovered". Re-jigged the sentence a bit further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Does collected mean moved off site? Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it should cover both excavation and moving of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This was not obvious. I suppose my point is about accessibility and using simple rather than disguised but subtle technical language. Its all very fascinating though. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the term "collecting" is also used in describing when archaeological artefacts are excavated and moved? But yeah, the main problem with palaeontology articles is always accessibility... FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Lusotitan

I don't particularly imagine I'll find a lot, given how many people have already gone over it, but I'll chip in anyways:

Alright, some of these seem to be somewhat subjective, I'll answer some now and see what I can fix tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• It had a pair of longitudinal, plate-shaped crests on its skull, similar to a cassowary with two crests. – two things in this sentence: firstly, longitudinal should probably link to either Sagittal plane or the "Planes" section of Anatomical terms of location; secondly, the cassowary comparison seems rather odd, given the much more complex internal structure of cassowary casques. Given the use of images throughout the article, I'm not sure a comparison is really necessary anyway. The same comparison is made in the Skull section. Also, fitting in the word parallel in might be nice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The cassowary comparison is made in the detailed description by Welles, and note that most people reading this article won't be experts, so comparisons that may seem daft for the rest of us is probably helpful to most others. The crests aren't really sagittal, by the way, since they are offset from the midline, and longitudinal isn't really a specifically anatomical term. They could be described as "parasagittal", but I don't really think that helps many readers beyond what is already written, but just adds more complexity to an already complex sentence.FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay; I just searched "longitudinal" and it was said to be a synonym of sagittal on the Anatomical terms of location page. Either that's incorrect, or the reference to them being "longitudinal" (which is useless to lay readers in absence of a link anyways) should just be removed. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that longitudinal refers to something across the length, whereas sagittal is something on the midline of something. Therefore, they are not really synonyms, but describe a similar thing. Longitude is a very common word, so it is something most readers understand, and I don't see what benefit there would be in removing it. Also note that though "longitudinal plane" may be an anatomical term, it is more specific than the more general "longitudinal" which is used here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• A resting trace of a theropod similar to Dilophosaurus and Liliensternus has been interpreted by some researchers as showing impressions of feathers around the belly and feet, similar to down. Other researchers instead interpret these impressions as sedimentological artifacts created as the dinosaur moved, though this interpretation does not rule out that the track-maker could have borne feathers.[7][8][9][10] – this whole chip about integument is written fine, but it seems odd to place at the end of a paragraph that's all about size. Why not make it its own paragraph, right before the "skull" section? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph gives a general overview of the animal, so that's where I think that info makes most sense, as I don't think it is long enough to warrant a separate paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• During preparation of this specimen, it became clear that it was a larger individual of M. wetherilli, and that it would have had two crests on the top of its skull. Being a thin plate of bone, one crest was originally thought to be part of the missing left side of the skull which had been pulled out of its position by a scavenger. When it became apparent that it was a crest, it was also realized that there would have been a corresponding crest on the left side, since the right crest was right of the midline, and was concave along its middle length. – it's never really established properly how complete and intact the skull was. As the excerpt goes on, it just sort of slowly gives information and implications about the preservation, making it somewhat unclear and awkward to read. Could it be established in the preceding sentence or something, for clarity? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is dealt with in the first paragraph of the history section. The source doesn't really give much more detail than that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, the section I quoted was about the 1964 specimen, which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in that paragraph at all? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, there is nothing more in the sources on the 1964 specimen, unless we dig out Pickering's "Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry", which even few palaeontologists have ever seen... FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Dilophosaurus was the first well-known theropod from the Early Jurassic, and remains one of the best-preserved examples of that age.[3] - to my knowledge, it's one of the best-preserved dinosaurs of the Early Jurassic in general, which I think would be notable to state. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but none of the sources make this point explicitly as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Formerly assigned species" section, the one on "breedorum", contradicts the Theropod Database's section on it on several points. The "Skull" section claims it was never described, but the Database says Pickering's paper was a description, not just a naming of it. It also says Welles wrote it, with Pickering merely releasing it. Additionally, it says Paul (1988) was unsure whether the specimen was distinct or not, and Gauthier (1986) is said to have commented on it, so the suggestion wasn't entirely "ignored and forgotten". There's confusion mentioned over whether Pickering's release of the naming was released in 1995 or 1999, and George Olshevsky is said to have considered the name validly published on the DML. Not sure where all these inconsistencies are coming from, but a further look into it seems warranted. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The section doesn't say "entirely" ignored/forgotten but generally, as Darren Naish puts it. But yes, though Pickering's description isn't considered proper, he seems to have done so, so I've added "properly" in front of "described" in the earlier mention. I believe the "not described" claim is from Rauhut, and scientifically, it hasn't been described, since invalidly published articles are grey literature, which could just as well not exist, which is the cause of the inconsistencies. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as it's not flatly incorrect on anything we don't need to go into every detail of the taxon. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• In 1971 Welles reported dinosaur footprints from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona, 14 meters (45 ft) and 112 meters (367 ft) below the level where the original Dilophosaurus specimens were found. - this could be confusing, since there's two numbers in succession; if it's just two trackways being referred to here (which I'm assuming, since there's two numbers), saying "report two tracks of dinosaur footprints" and then "...112 meters (367 ft), respectively," would make it more clear. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's not talking about two trackways, but two separate areas with several footprints and trackways, only some of which are the tracks attributed to Dilophosaurus and discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well then my points stands, just with "two areas with dinosaur footprints" instead. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Said "two levels", since that's how the source describes it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• The American paleontologist Robert E. Weems proposed in 2003 that Eubrontes was not produced by a theropod but by a sauropodomorph similar to Plateosaurus, excluding Dilophosaurus as possible trackmaker. - trackmaker of what? This is the first sentence of the paragraph. Eubrontes is mentioned twice in the section prior, once as a subgenus at the start of the last paragraph (multiple other trackways were discussed since that mentioned), and one mention in the middle of the first paragraph. This sentence doesn't clearly refer to either one, so I'm at a loss what this is supposed to mean. Also, it should say "as a possible trackmaker".Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The name Eubrontes refers to a type of track, not to any specific tracks. But I added "a". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm still confused what it's referring to. The ichnogenus in general? In that case, why is it clearly written to sound like it's referring to something already brought up? Only specific instances have been mentioned up to that point. Is it referring to the 1996 trackway from the first paragraph? In that case, why is there an entire unrelated paragraph sandwiched in the middle? I'm just confused about the topic being discussion in general here. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed "that Eubrontes was not" to "that Eubrontes tracks were not", does it make it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Instead, Weems proposed Kayentapus, another ichnotaxon originally named by Welles from the Kayenta Formation in 1971, as the best match for Dilophosaurus.[28][32] - this is the next sentence, and it suddenly changes from matching Dilophosaurus to trackways in the preceding sentence to matching trackways to Dilophosaurus in this one.

It is really interchangeable which is matched to which. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really...? It's saying "here are these tracks, did Dilophosaurus make them" versus "are the tracks of Dilophosaurus those of the x type". It's a complete reversal of the question, making for a rather jarring swap of topic. You could remove the "as the best match for Dilophosaurus" and add "Weems proposed Dilphosaurus made the tracks of the ichnotaxon Kayentavenator", which would fix the confusion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2003 Weems source used there says "Therefore, the large footprint called Kayentapus hopii from the Kayenta Formation is the best available match for the foot of Dilophosaurus." The 2006 Weems source says "Thus, the unexpected manus prints of Kayentapus, far from precluding a Dilophosaurus-like ceratosaur from being their track maker, actually reinforce the association of such manus and pes prints with ceratosaurs." Changing the former to "Dilophosaurus made the tracks" veers too far away from what the first source actually says. The writer describes it differently in each of his articles, so we can't really try to homogenise it for the sake of internal consistency within the article, we can only reflect what the sources say. I have modified the sentence in some other ways, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• In 2006, Weems defended his assessment made in the 2003 paper, and proposed Dilophosaurus as possible trackmaker of numerous Kayentapus trackways of the Culpeper Quarry in Virginia. - start of the next paragraph, and it mentions "the 2003 paper". But two 2003 studies were mentioned in the last paragraph. Though the clause of Weems defending his assessment makes it clear which is being referred to, "in his 2003 paper" would still be more appropriate. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Added "his". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Gigandipus and Anchisauripus may likewise also just represent variations of Eubrontes. They pointed out that differences between ichnotaxa may reflect how the track-maker interacted with the substrate rather than taxonomy. - those two taxa have not been brought up at all in the section before and aren't invoked again afterwards, why is it relevant? The second sentence, for its part, is just about ichnology in general - how this applies to Dilophosauripus was already gone over in the sentence before the excerpt. Both sentences should be removed. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If Gigandipus and Anchisauripus are the same as Eubrontes, and Eubrontes has been attributed to Dilophosaurus, that means they can also be attributed to Dilophosaurus. The statement about substrate interaction explains to the reader why so many names have been given to the same things, which they are probably wondering about after reading that section. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Could a mention that this means that Gigandipus and Anchisauripus being Eubrontes making them Dilophoaurus tracks be put in the sentence, making the connection to the topic more clearly direct? As for the second sentence, maybe a "the" before the word "inchnotaxa" would relate it to the topic better. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say it outright, as it is not concerned with assigning these tracks to Dilophosaurus, but with sorting out taxonomy among the track taxa themselves. The writers likely assume that since they have already stated that Dilophosaurus could be a match for Eubrontes, they don't have to repeat that this goes for eventual synonyms of Eubrontes as well. I've reworded the sentence slightly, don't know if it makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Does a section on Ichnology really belong in a History of discovery section? Granted, it doesn't fit better anywhere else, but it still feels out of place. Could a top-level section be warranted? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it is mainly about ichnotaxonomy and the various individual discoveries, that is where it makes most sense. What can be inferred from the tracks is covered under palaeobiology. You could argue the section should instead be called ichnotaxonomy, but most lay readers already had trouble understanding the section as is, so I don't think we need to hassle them with even more obscure terminology... FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Lamanna and colleagues pointed out in 1998 that since Dilophosaurus was found to have crests on its skull, other similarly crested theropods have been discovered (including Sinosaurus), and that this feature is therefore not unique to the genus, and of limited use for determining interrelationships within their group. - I initially read this as in "because Dilophosaurus was found to have crests...", which made no sense. Adding the clause "on its skull in 1964" would fix this. Also, Spinosaurus being mentioned seems both unnecessary and out of place, despite spinosaurs being brought up last paragraph. Lastly, I'd try to find a way to avoid using "and" twice in this sentence; perhaps "so of limited..."? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Sinosaurus? That genus is very relevant there, so I guess you misread it. I have replaced "found to have" with "discovered to have had" and removed an "and". FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All for now, I'll cover the second half of the article later. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be gone for a few days starting tomorrow, it's been reviewed by several people, and all the qualms I raised have been dealt with or defended satisfactorily, so I'll give this support. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, if this isn't closed by your return, feel free to bring up further issues. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.