Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giganotosaurus/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) 14:41, 19 November 2016 [1].

Giganotosaurus

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs, and therefore one of the largest terrestrial carnivores to have ever existed. The dinosaur is thought to have equalled or even surpassed Tyrannosaurus in length, and the article is one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. The article contains practically everything ever published about this animal, and covers the scientific debate/competition about the maximum size of theropod dinosaurs. The article is a GA and has been copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive and well written, but, of course, some quibbles

  • I appreciate that there need to be some technical terms, but in places they appear unnecessary. How is "caudal (tail) vertebrae" better than "tail vertebrae" either in style or information content? Please check to see where the text can be made reader-friendlier
I swapped the words so the scientific terms for vertebrae are in parenthesis. But for most of the other anatomical terms, the scientific terms are the most used, and using something like "groove" instead of sulcus would be too generic (and make the meaning less clear), I think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, if you are going to use technical or mainly US terms, make sure they are linked. I noticed Vertebra, dune buggy and badlands, but there may be others
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • genus of theropod dinosaur — is this a typo or a hunters' plural as in "I killed three lion, six tiger and two gigantosaur?
It is supposed to be singular. Like "is a genus of psittacine parrot", or some such... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • honours the discoverer why do we have to read most of the article to find who he is?.
Now added to intro, is that what you meant? History is the only place in the article body where that info makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fully devoted— how does this differ from "devoted"?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WW2 expand and link
Hehe, the link was removed by a copy editor... Added again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might have another read through in due course. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Great to see this one here - more soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though incompletely known, the skull of Giganotosaurus appears to have been proportionally low. - what does "proportionally low" mean?
I guess it means in proportion to its length, but the source doesn't specify. I've removed "proportionally", better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read though, nothing else is jumping out at me...so looking okay really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) i.e. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

please note that I am not spot-checking refs and shall not be returning to strike out my queries

  • ref 1 - since it is an encyclopedia, it needs to be in italics.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know the publisher for ref 6?
It's just the author's university website[2], should I use the name of the university or something? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Skeletal Drawing a credible source?
Scott Hartman is a published palaeontologist[3], Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to wiki-link NPR and it's not need italics.
Linked, but the italics are added by the template, can't remove them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 19 - ditto (McFarland & Co.)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for writing the full date only in ref 27? Also, if I am not mistaken the date is 26 Sep not 11 Sep.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-links needed for the following: PLoS ONE (31), Acta Palaeontologica Polonica (34), news.nationalgeographic.com (36; you can simply write it as National Geographic) and Cretaceous Research (37). – Liebe99 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I'm pretty sure this is not a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will look at these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

edit

I'll spot check some refs presently. using this version in case refs are movedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 5 - used twice - material faithful to source
  • FN 33 - used once - material faithful to source
  • FN 37 - used twice - material faithful to source

ok I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

Generally looks in good shape. A few comments:

  • "during the early Cenomanian age, of the Late Cretaceous period": I don't think you need that comma.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image showing comparisons of size sourced? I don't see anything indicating the sources when I click through to the file; the details in the history persuade that it is very likely based on sourced data, but I think it should either be sourced here in the article or else in the file.
"Rescued" this data from another version of the image.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four links given are to Wikipedia users, and one is a broken link. The other is to a blog, which looks like it might pass RS, but I don't see the specific pages or data given that support the image used here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sizes shown are within the range of what's stated in the cited article text, so I could perhaps add those sources? As noted in the discussion linked below, WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE should secure the use of user-made images. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some writers have considered such sizes exaggerated": this is positioned to make it seem that the scepticism only applies to the second specimen, but since the estimated sizes are barely largely than those estimated for the holotype I'm curious to know if the scepticism applies to both sets of sizes? If so I'd make that clearer in the text.
There has been scepticism about about the largest estimates for both specimens, so I tweaked the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The maxilla of the upper jaw": aren't these the same? I'd think this should be "The maxilla (upper jaw)".
There is also the premaxilla (which is very small in humans), in front of the maxilla. It makes up a considerable part of the upper jaws in long-snouted animals. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the restoration sourced? E.g. is this just a Wikipedian's imagination or can it be shown to represent a reliable source's description? And the same question for the other two restoration images later in the article.
Such restorations are normally drawn after skeletal reconstructions of some kind, but the artists don't always state which exact skeletal image they have based their drawings on. There was some discussion about whether user-made illustrations of dinosaurs were appropriate for Wikipedia[5], but the conclusion was that these are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions. In any case, the images have been under review at the Dinosaur Wiki Project's image review:[6] or on the talk page, and other users, including myself, have made some anatomical tweaks on them. Two of the artists (Dmitry Bogdanov and Nobu Tamura) have illustrated published dinosaur books as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't run into this before; I'll post on WT:FAC and try to get more opinions. My feeling is that it's fine for a Wikipedian to make a picture, and it doesn't have to be considered original research, but it should be possible for a reader to understand where the picture came from and why it's reliable. I don't think that's the case here. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed at length at the "no original research" talk page[7], with the consensus mentioned above. So feel free to start a new discussion, but please make clear that it has already been discussed with a favourable outcome, with emphasis on WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE. There was also this lead-up discussion:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though not completely known, it is possible that each dentary had twelve alveoli": suggest cutting the first four words; I don't think they say anything that "It is possible" doesn't say.
Snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with elements used by palaeontologists during the excavation": what does "elements" mean here?
It most likely means equipment, but the source simpy says "The elements used by paleontologists during the searches are also on display." So not sure how much room there is for interpretation here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know exactly what it means, I think it should just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know from for example this[9] blog post that these "elements" are a dune buggy and field tools, but not sure how reliable it is to use as source, though it is rather uncontroversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use the pictures here to support the description? The dune buggy shows up there a couple of times, and in at least one shot I can see tools. I know these are user-contributed pictures, but tripadvisor exercises editorial control over what gets displayed, so I think this would count as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this[10] Tripadvisor review specifically states "El Buggy que utilizaba Ruben Carolini cuando encontró al Dinosaurio mas grande del mundo". So perhaps better than citing an image? FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better; I think I'd cite the image too, just to make sure nobody complains about the user-generated nature of the quote. Can't use that for the tools, though, but the buggy is the main point, since it was clearly set up to look like the discovery scene. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discussion of what was the largest theropod": suggest "The discussion of which theropod was the largest".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would help in understanding of the Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas": suggest "would help in the understanding of Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake Ezquiel Ramos Mexia": a Google search suggests this might be a typo for "Ezequiel".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estimates in absolute values like newtons was impossible": either "estimating ... was impossible", or "estimates ... were impossible".
Took the last option. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll respond later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the points except the ones about the images; I'll ask at WT:FAC and see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the conversation at WT:FAC, if you can add sources to the other images as well I think that addresses the image issue. That just leaves the "elements" point, which I think we're agreed on but the change is not yet in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll take care of all this later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced some more of the images, but will finish the rest early next week. Had less time than I expected... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Tripadvisor links are maybe a bit iffy, how about using this more official-looking site[11] about that exhibition which says "it houses bone replicas, lifestyles and tools used by paleontologists", and replacing the word "elements" with "tools" in this article?
    Yes, that would definitely be an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added that source, added references to restorations, and removed one image that showed grass, as I cannot find any references that state such was found at the time and place this dinosaur lived. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just had a look, and all four of the restoration pictures now have sources; that was my only remaining objection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to now have a standard for how to do this in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (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/Giganotosaurus/archive1&oldid=750470740"