Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istiodactylus/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) 15:34, 22 July 2017 [1].

Istiodactylus

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article about a pterosaur (or "pterodactyl") to ever be nominated for FAC. The group is often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images. It is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from N Oneemuss

edit

I've never reviewed an article before, so if you disagree with my comments then you're probably right :). Also, I am a layman when it comes to palaentology, but I do agree that it would be nice to promote a pterosaur to featured article.

Lead
edit
  • I don't think England needs to be linked in the lead (and if it should, then China probably should be too)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naso-antorbital" in the lead should probably be defined (I can't find an article to link it to, unfortunately)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "razor-edged" in quotation marks? If it is a quote, where is it from?
Because it is kind of a subjective description, it has also been described in other ways (listed in the description section), but I just picked the most descriptive one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and should be linked to its taxonomic meaning if genus is. Is "group" a scientific term too?
Linked family, group is just informal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to a "cookie cutter" seems quite informal to me
Yep, but it has been described like this by several writers, so it is an established way of describing it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this article in British or American English? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "cookie cutter" seems American ("biscuit cutter" would be British), but your spelling of "palaeontology" is British
British. Most of the sources are by British scientists too, and they say "cookie cutter". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
edit
  • Some references are out of order (not just in this section), e.g. "The hindlimbs were short compared to the forelimbs, and the feet were as long as the small third finger.[2][1][4]"
Yeah, not sure if they're required to be in order, though, I've not been told to do so before. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything that says they have to be in order either, so I think it can stay as is N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a quite large pterosaur" sounds a bit odd to me; how about "quite a large pterosaur"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and last sentences of the first paragraph (and the first of the second paragraph) are very similar to sentences in the lead. I don't know enough about the Featured Article Criteria to know if this is a problem, but I would certainly change the very first sentence (which is copied almost word-for-word)
Shouldn't be an issue with the FAC criteria, it is just the most concise way to say it, and can't really be further condensed in the intro (though "quite" is gone). FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "rediscovered" in quote marks? Also, the term suggests that there is more of a story behind this, which could be worth adding (perhaps as a note)
This was added by the copy-editor. I have changed it to the original version, the story is elaborated further in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It redirects to the specific section about these structures, though, which makes it easier for the readers to find it. Also, it can't really be defined much further than "hairlike fibres", which is pretty much what the article already says. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving inches to two decimal places seems excessive (how about "0.2–0.3 in"?)
That's how the conversion template does it, not sure what parameters to add, but I wouldn't mind changing it if I did. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This works: 6–7 millimetres (0.2–0.3 in) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention what language "odontoid" means "pseudo-tooth" in
The sources don't say what it directly translates as, and I don't even think it means pseudotooth, that's just an alternate term. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why "percent" is spelled out in the first paragraph and given as a symbol in the last?
Spelled out both times now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All in all, this section seems very technical, but I suppose that is unavoidable with this sort of article
Yeah, with no external features known, most prehistoric animals can only be described from their skeletal features, and such descriptions are pretty technical by default. But it is much simplified from the sources anyhow, and many details most readers wouldn't understand are left out. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History of discovery
edit
  • Again, there are some out-of-order references in this section (e.g. after the second sentence)
  • I think palaeontologist and geologist need links
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently suggested" – do we know when?
Same year, added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful the mention of the Natural History Museum's previous name is, especially given as an abbreviation
That's how these specimens were referred to in the literature until it was changed relatively recently, so it is important to note, in case readers want to check out the given sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for Atherfield suggests that it is called Little Atherfield – do you know if this was different at the time?
Changed to Atherfield Ledge, which I think is the relevant one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sacra" could use a link or definition (or both)
Linked. It is already explained earlier (when synsacrum is mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That link goes to a disambiguation page; the link should be sacrum instead N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of words explaining who Lyddeker was could be nice (same with Jenny A. Clack a bit later)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the first two paragraphs of this section so far. EDIT: Am now back to reviewing.
  • Seeing as the previous mentions were all specific to the Early Cretaceous, Cretaceous could be linked here
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ischium should be linked too, I think
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify what "three-dimensionally preserved" means? How can something not be preserved in 3D?
Yes, most pterosaur fossils are squashed flat, compression fossils. Added a note. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it might be useful to briefly note who Williston is
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Bennett? (I assume that he isn't any of the people on the disambiguation page Chris Bennett)
Comment He doesn't have a Wikipedia page. [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to say "the palaeontologist Chris Bennett" (or something along those lines) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a mistake with the italics in "O." latidens (ignore if this is deliberate)
The quotation marks are to show that the genus and species do not belong together. Not sure if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information about the additional finds on the Isle of Wight could be useful (e.g. a date)
Added a bit, but not much to find. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the species name refers to the country" I think this needs clarifying, because the link between sinensis and China isn't immediately obvious
Changed the note, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to read this sentence three times to properly understand it: "They found the holotype specimen, a partial skeleton, very similar to I. latidens, though it was much smaller, with a wingspan of 2.7 metres (8.9 ft), and more teeth." The use of commas makes it hard to see that they found two things: the holotype specimen (which was the partial skeleton), and teeth. I think splitting this into two sentence could be useful (e.g. "They found the holotype specimen, as well as more teeth. The specimen was a partial skeleton, very similar...")
I shook the text around and shortened the sentence, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Jun-Chang (again, I think just calling him a "Chinese palaeontologist" or something similar could be useful)?
Comment He has a Polish page. The last name is Lü. IMO his name should still be included, because there are many, many Chinese pterosaur researchers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So many different Chinese studies are mentioned that it is good to be able to distinguish them somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the use of "figured" in the last paragraph; it seems to be quite an unusual meaning of the word, so maybe something like "represented in a diagram" would be better. Also, that sentence could be recast into active voice
It is very common (if not the standard) in scientific literature ("fig. 1", etc.), but reworded anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Classification
edit
  • I don't think "schools" needs to be in quotes; it's a common use of the term
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clade should probably be linked, as should taxa (and also maybe age, though that article is a bit useless)
Done, short articles may expand in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about cladograms, but why is Pterodactylus there? It is only distantly related to the article subject, and appears only once in the article
Comment Pterodactylus is an outgroup taxon that provides phylogenetic context; it represents the sister group of the other species present in the cladogram. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief note with a link to outgroup. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeobiology
edit
  • "herons, storks and skimmers" – this may be too obvious, but it might be worth mentioning that they are all birds
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "mosaic" a technical term here? It sounds strange and out of place to me
Comment Cf. mosaic evolution. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rostrum" could use a link
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row start with "scavenging birds" (how about starting the second one with "they"?)
I said "these birds", to still make it clear what we are talking about. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to "aspect ratio" seems unhelpful; it's about geometry, so a definition or a different link is needed
Changed to Aspect ratio (aeronautics). FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soaring birds is a redirect to a list with only two sentences of explanation; maybe a definition could be more helpful
Hmmm, it is just birds that soar, added that such rarely flap their wings. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Nurhachius confused me, seeing as it was mentioned only much earlier in the article. Also, I'm not certain of its relevance here (is this to do with the fact that this is another name for I. sinensis, or what?)
Witton mentions it to make inferences about istiodactylids in general. Added "istiodactylid" in front of the name, if it helps. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wings of istiodactylids...the wings of istiodactylids...the wing shape of istiodactylids" – repetitive paragraph
Changed the middle occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. I think hands and feet are meant, but it isn't clarified in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there had been suggestions about the feet being used for "climbing or suspension", then I think this could be mentioned elsewehere in the article (instead of just with reference to Witton's work)
The feet aren't known for this genus, so I'm not actually sure what Witton is referring to (perhaps inferred from some other istiodactylids). None of the other sources about this genus mention it. I know it has been proposed for pterosaurs in general, but it is hard to say what Witton meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeoecology
edit
  • I was meaning to look at this section later, but I just noted that "degrees" is mentioned on its own; I think it needs a unit (presumably Celsius) and a conversion
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong, but is it necessary to mention that the first specimen might have been collected from the Wessex Formation? Seeing as there are two options, then the statement is obviously true (and the evidence seems weak). Also, is this from the source, or your guess?
Guesses by editors are not allowed, that would be WP:OR. But the exact circumstances and location where the holotype specimen was collected is unknown. Since other specimens are known from both Wessex and Vectis, either option is possible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to radius in the caption is about maths
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Hooley's specimens switches tenses, which seems a bit ugly; are the specimens still encrusted in pyrite?
The sources are not entirely clear, but it seems they are still coated in pyrite. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, didn't know there was an article with that exact title, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crocodilians" could be linked to Crocodilia (to be honest, it should probably be a redirect anyway)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore this if I'm wrong (which is likely), but I'm not sure about how useful this section's second paragraph is. It is as if an article about walruses listed twenty animals and plants that live in the same environment as they do. Also, why is the entire second paragraph about the Wessex Formation (surely there is information from other sites, like the Vectis Formation, where members of the genus have been found)? If this is standard for palaeontology articles, then ignore me.
Comment Listing fauna is standard for palaeontology articles. The Vectis Formation, however, is quite understudied; I tried to locate some adequate sources on the Vectis to help with this article's GAN, with no luck. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such sections are good to put the animals into context. With articles about living animals, we know which other species they interact with and can write about such interactions. But here, we need to reconstruct everything descriptively. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article seems very good to me so far. As a first-time reviewer, I don't really feel qualified to support or oppose, but I think that all of my comments are fairly minor. Again, feel free to use your judgement and ignore comments that you don't agree with. More to follow (within the next few hours).N Oneemuss (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, layman reviews are always more than welcome! Most readers will be laymen anyway. I'll start fixing issues later. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the whole thing now, and I must say that you have done an excellent job on this article. None of my issues are particularly important, to be honest.N Oneemuss (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, everything should be addressed now (I think). Thanks for the thorough review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I have read through the article again, and I have only found a few more issues:
  • sacra in "history of discovery" links to a disambiguation page (I mentioned this above)
Linked to sacrum. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why is (Seeley, 1901) in brackets in one place, but "Andres & Qiang, 2006" isn't in brackets?
Because though Seeley named the species, the current genus/species combination is not the same as the one he coined. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agesof" appears as one word in the second paragraph of the "classification" section
Added space. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of the "classification" section, subfamily could use a link
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are addressed, I think I will support this article. N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think all are addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, well done for the good work on this article. It has my support. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think you should have no problem reviewing other articles after this! FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, luckily it didn't take long for a "layman" review this time around. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

edit
  • wingspan ranging from 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft) long. – Not sure if you need the "long" here, as the word "span" already implies a length measure. But I'm not sure.
Not sure either, but makes sense. But to be sure, pinging Casliber and Sabine's Sunbird, as they might know the norm in bird literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might say "wingspan of 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft)" or the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, ok, I think I will retain the current wording, just to make it as clear as possible. But I have no problem with changing it on further objections. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know that both wordings are possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but you perhaps should consider replacing "nostril" with "external naris". "Nostril" is misleading, as it refers to the soft-part anatomy of the nose, which is not preserved.
Stafford/Howse/Milner 2001 actually say "skull elongate but with short shout regon anterior to the nostrils" in their diagnosis. So I'm thinking the terms can actually be used synonymously? I have also seen the term "bony nostril" used in various places, including the 2001 Witmer nostril paper.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the classification section: Maybe it would be easier for the reader if Istiodactylidae gets properly introduced (I know, there is already a sentence in the History of Discovery section). Do I understood it correctly that in both Unwin and Kellner classifications Istiodactylidae contains exclusively Istiodactylus itself?
At that time (2003), only Istiodactylus itself was known (as the sole member of the family, stated in history). Should I give dates for when the others were recognised? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about adding a sentence like In 2001, Howse, Milner, and Martill placed the genus in its own family, Istiodactylidae. Just to make this section complete, and to improve on the information flow. Of course, this would be a redundancy. Just an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief note that the group was monotypic by 2003, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the first three species listed are outgroup or reference taxa) – I count five listed outgroup taxa.
I think the two others (Hongshanopterus, Haopterus) are there because they have previously been thought to be istiodactylids. Witton says "Pterodactylus, Coloborhynchus and Pteranodon were used as outgroup taxa". He also says "... suggests Istiodactylidae is constrained to five species (Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, Lonchengpterus zhoai, Nurhachius ignaciobritoi, Istiodactylus latidens and Istiodactylus sinensis) defined by their distinctive dentition, but excludes the putative istiodactylids Haopterus gracilis and Hongshanopterus lacustris." So he wanted to test their placement relative to istiodactylids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the classification section, especially the second sentence, is hard to read and understand, and could be a lot clearer.
Switched some things around, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the istiodactylids from China (the first known perhaps being Haopterus) – this might confuse some readers, as Haopterus is shown outside Istiodactylidae in the cladogram. What about adding a sentence listing the genera with are sometimes, but not always, included in the group?
Took it out of the parenthesis, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have fixed some things and added some responses above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two fossils from North America initially thought to have been istiodactylids are now believed to have been misidentified (Gwawinapterus is most likely a fish, for example). – When there are only two fossils, I would just mention both of them instead of chosing one as an example. What is the second anyway? I had a quick look at Witton (2013) but could not find it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Witton mentions it on page 145, it is a reference to this Bakker paper:[4] But I can see Bakker only compared it to Istiodactylus, so I have rewritten it accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • trying to hide or to attack them with precision. – Are you refering to Mobbing (animal behavior) here? This could do well with a bit of additional info. And what about removing "with precision" here? Why is it important that the attac comes "with precision"? Just attac would be enough?
It is meant in a predatory sense. Witton says "Their orbits are also relatively small as, unlike predatory birds, they do not have to search for animals attempting to remain undetected nor carefully judge attacks on prey items", which I tried to simplify... But I have now reworded it, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on his long-jawed reconstruction, Hooley found the beak of Istiodactylus similar to … – I would add the year of Hooley's study here. I know, it is mentioned in other sections. But the reader does not know that this is referring to one and the same study (and will have forgotten the date already anyway). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made some fixes. And by the way, no problem with delays, I was busy with planning a friend's Polterabend the last many days anyway... By the way, while searching for the Bakker paper mentioned above, I found this blog-post by Mark Witton[5] which explains some details not mentioned in his paper or book... So I might want to add it after I read it more thoroughly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes – I want to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again for the professional opinion! FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

edit
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (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/Istiodactylus/archive1&oldid=791868209"