Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lythronax/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) 6 May 2020 [1].

Lythronax

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC); Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC); IJReid (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first FAC about a tyrannosaur, one of the most famous dinosaur groups, since 2008's Gorgosaurus. It is also one of the few dinosaurs ever mentioned in a presidential proclamation, for rather unfortunate reasons. We have cited all relevant studies, and luckily many nice, free images were available to use. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will probably make a few copy edits as I go. Shout if I mess anything up.

Thanks, I have it listed at the copy edit request page, maybe I should just remove it from there (or add another article)? FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sort of article I might pick up myself from GoCER, but I didn't actually find anything to copy edit!
Agreed and changed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IJReid, seems you missed signing as nominator? FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UMNH referred to Lythronax as a "great-uncle" referred or refers?
I can see it either way. The website cited is written in the style of a press release, but it is undated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US government was subsequently sued" Do we know the result or progress of this? Is it still ongoing?
Seems to be pending: [2] But the details of the case seem a bit out of scope. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it won't get resolved any time soon, it is a pretty recent case... Disregarding NPOV for a minute, hopefully the US will have a new president before any damage can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24.0–26.2 ft" 1. Is this false precision? 2. I find decimal feet very odd. Are they normal within paleontology?
This is the {{convert}} template doing its thing. I don't think ft is ever used in palaeo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then add |ftin .
I've changed it to represent what should be proper sig figs. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unique among tyrannosauroids except" Is there a way of phrasing this that doesn't involve the unfortunate "unique ... except"?
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5.1 in" |sigfig=1 ?
5.1 would have the proper count of 2 sig figs as 13 is 2. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proper count is that which best conveys accurate information to the reader. If the source gives the measurement to the nearest centimetre (Which as the article does not state 13.0 cm I am assuming it does) then I would like a rationale for giving the conversion to the nearest tenth of an inch.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A detailed phylogenetic analysis accompanying the 2013 description of Lythronax by Loewen and colleagues" Was it the "detailed phylogenetic analysis", "the 2013 description" or both that were by Loewen and colleagues?
Both. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both of these results were suggested to stem from duplication of characters" Is there a typo here? If not, perhaps a smidgeon more explanation.
I'm not entirely sure how to word that the duplication of characters means that the same feature was described differently in multiple phylogenetic characters making it more "weighted" for the analysis because of how they run. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if one of the nominators could respond to the query.
IJReid is actually one of the nominators, just forgot to sign, I think. Both he and Lythronaxargestes have better grasps at the details of phylogenetic analysis than me. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IJReid. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Maybe something like 'It has been suggested that both of these results stemmed from an over-weighting of some features by... '? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it in with a bit of a tweak now to the entire sentence (also impacts comment below, if it makes that one worse I can undo the change to the end) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the placement of Bistahieversor pulling Lythronax closer to Tyrannosaurus than otherwise would be resolved" I am not sure that "would be resolved" is readily comprehensible.
Reworded, is this better? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much. Thank you.
  • "with Tyrannosaurus being descended from North American forms before such migration took place" Optional: This may be a little clearer with 'from North American forms from before such migration took place'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they recovered the north-south divisions of tyrannosaurids suggested by Loewen and colleagues." I am not sure what "recovered" means in this context.
Reworded all occurrences of "recovered". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lythronax was distinct from most other tyrannosaurids due to its shortened skull" comes over a little oddly. Consider rewording. (Eg, 'Lythronax differed from most other tyrannosaurids in having a shortened skull'.)
Took your suggestion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had appeared at least by 80 million years ago" Should that be 'had appeared by at least 80 million years ago'?
Agreed, changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "turtles like Compsemys" Optional: "like" → 'such as'.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A fair number of" Optional: → 'Numerous'.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent article. A first class job of clear explication. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think all the issues have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the changes look good. Two discussion points left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just the minor point re the precision of a measurement left to discuss. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should also now be fixed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well. One of the very best articles I have come across on Wikipedia. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, great that it came off as such, because dinosaur articles can often be hard to understand if one isn't very well-versed in paleontology already. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Several of the diagrams would benefit from being scaled up
Any specific ones in mind? None stand out to me, but probably just a consequence of my screen size. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal diagrams and the sea level change chart in particular. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "upright" parameter to these images (including the skull image File:Lythronax.png). Are they better? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
I have added alt text to all images in the main body of the article. Please note that this is my first attempt at writing alt text for an article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rinchenia_mongoliensis_profile1.jpg: on what source was this based? Same with File:Patagonykuspuertai.jpg, File:Alioramus_Life_Restoration.jpg, File:Stokesosaurus_by_Tom_Parker.png, File:Carcharodontosaurus.png, File:Neovenator.png, File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg, File:Torvosaurus_tanneri_Reconstruction_(Flipped).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about the navigation template? I'm a bit surprised that they are considered to be within the scope of the article, especially since it does not seem to have been a problem previously (cf. the FA review of Brachiosaurus). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering about this, got the same comment on Ichthyovenator's FA review[3]. Since we didn't make any of those images and thus wouldn't know what sources were used in their creation, should we just cite the most reliable skeletals we can find for each species on their respective Commons image pages? That is, if they are indeed considered within the scope of the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The navboxes are part of the article. Any source that can verify the representation would be appropriate, even if not the exact one used by the original creator. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified and sourced all of the unsourced images individually. Some can be definitively sourced because the image review discussions have been archived. Others match up to state-of-the-art skeletal reconstructions. One image has failed verification and has been posted for revision at the appropriate image review page, but I'm hoping it's not a big deal (since it is a navbox image after all). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The offending image has been corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, guys, I was away over the weekend so didn't see this until now. And yeah, it's enough if a source is added that an image can be checked up against, even if we can't be sure what exact reference the artists used originally. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Looking now...

  • between 5–8 m - should be " between 5 and 8 m" - ir " 5–8 m"
  • Similarly the measurements just following.

Otherwise reads well and is comprehensive (only caveat being I am familiar with terms so not best judge of accessability) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77

edit
The Lythronax paper frustratingly does not include measurements (MYDD!) so this information is not available. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they give the measurements of other teeth or say something like the teeth decrease in size towards the back of the mouth? You could also say "the biggest teeth were" instead of "the teeth differed in size" so it doesn't leave it open-ended   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It already says "with the first five much larger than those following" just before. Oh, wait, this is about the lead. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to use the abbreviation because the UMNH acronym is already explained in the previous paragraph. If it makes more sense, I can take out the entire note. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is interesting as it shows how it was reported at the time, and also it gives an easy to understand analogy. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diabloceratops. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure it's important enough to mention the other one here (but it's ok now it was added), but the document is available online for all to see. I doubt Trump either wrote, read, or understood any of it, though... FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, there is no result yet. Going into the legal nitty gritty is probably out of scope. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it will probably drag out for years. But once it's settled, I think we can mention the outcome. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should clarify it's an ongoing lawsuit at the very least   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that it is ongoing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This means "anterolateral". I think we still need a better way to word this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's worded right now makes it sound like a contradiction (how can something face forward and to the sides at the same time?)
That is what anterolateral means though. We also had "almost/nearly forwards" and "between the front and the sides" at one point, any of those better? FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
nearly forward is better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took your suggestion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded entirely. I think "basal" and "derived" are best defined together under Classification. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref fixed and format standardized throughout the whole article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PaleoGeekSquared

edit

Thought I might pitch in! Nice to see this fan-favourite tyrannosaur get to FAC. Very minor comments and nitpicks below. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By odd coincidence, we now have two simultaneous dinosaur FACs which have active editors named after them (Lythronaxargestes and Ichthyovenator)... FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing! Haha. Shame that Ichthyovenator wasn't a co-nominator for that article as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very close repetition of "robust", perhaps use another word in one of the instances?
First occurrence reworded to "heavily-built". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • Citations out of order on first sentence.
Yeah, I see it suggested sometimes, but I don't think it is a requirement. I think it's just optional. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done regardless. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lythronax had a relatively short snout and a broad skull (over 40% of the skull's length)" - The skull was 40% of the skull's length? This should probably be rephrased, not sure if it's meant to refer to the snout or skull width.
I'm not entirely sure how this was reached, I think IJReid might know. 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breadth/width 40% of length. Rewrote. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification:

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Late Cretaceous (around 95 million years ago)" Link Late Cretaceous and suggest adding period in front, as in lead.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology:

  • Looks good to me, no comments.

Paleoecology:

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, Supporting now; overall an exceptionally-written article! It's comprehensive enough, well-illustrated, and the prose has good flow, draws you in, and is very easy to understand even in the most technical parts. I'm definitely going to take several tips from this article on how to write my own FAs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it shows that we need more dinosaur collaborations! FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

The links all work, and all sources are reliable. I checked the non-academic sources for what they're used to support, and found no issues. A minor formatting issue: you are inconsistent about giving publisher location for At the Top of the Grand Staircase; the first citation has the location and the second does not. That's the only thing I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added location to second cite of that book. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 May 2020 (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/Lythronax/archive1&oldid=955185350"