Wikipedia:Peer review/Oxalaia/archive1

Oxalaia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been working on this article for quite a while and am very interested in eventually getting it to FA status, which honestly seems like quite a daunting task from all the pages and advice manuals I've seen related to FAC-related issues, which is understantable, given that Featured articles are supposed to be the most exemplary work on the wiki. Anyways, one of the recommendations before nominating an article for FAC I've seen is bringing it to peer review. as for the rest of the FA criteria I think it should be fine, but its the first requirement I'm really worried about, "making the writing engaging and of a professional standard". Help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 05:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One way to improve writing, which I usually do, is to send an article to WP:GOCE/REQ for a copy edit.

Done

You might also want to write a bit more about the significance of the spinosaur snout shape (as the genus is only known from a snout anyway), what it indicates for behaviour, having a "rosette" similar to gharials, the significance of having conical teeth, retracted nostrils, etc. This[1] source goes into that, but you should probably also look in one of your review sources. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I'm not sure if the nostril info is necessary, as the fossil snout does not include them.

Looks good,you might want to place the behavioural/functional info under paleoecology. Description is just for physical description, not function. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also overhauled the Palaeoecology section, I think this should look and flow much better now, additional info from Medeiros et al (2014) was also added. Couple other fixes done as well and a new image. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, perhaps use a les "intrusive" gharial image (it's going right down to the refs), I've used this one before:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I went with this[3] image, since the other one is already used in the Baryonyx article and it's good to have some variety. Adds a nice bit of color to the article as well. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC, citation consistency is very important. Now some of your sources abbreviate author names, some don't, and some use all caps. Journal articles should generally not have capitalised titles, only books, but you use a mix of styles now.

This is

Done, by request. Please ping me if more work is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 I've added another reference (the 15th one on the oxygen isotope study), is it consistent with the others? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also if you add dois and some urls to journal articles through the cite> templates tool in the edit window, you can get some refs filled out automatically in templates. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur articles this short have never been at FAC before, but it should be possible. I might recommend trying with a longer spinosaur genus article, though, such as Irritator you mentioned yourself, or Suchomimus. The FAs about the most fragmentary dinosaur genera we have are Dromaeosauroides and Paranthodon, which you could look at for how to flesh out the text. And of course take a look at Baryonyx, the only spinosaur FA so far. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those are actually the ones I've been using as examples so far, but thanks anyways! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, a single vertebral centrum was referred to Spinosaurus sp., suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region" How so, wouldn't it be equally or more likely that it belonged to Oxalaia? What does the source say exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Medeiros et al. 2014: "A vertebral fragment that is very constricted in its median portion with a rounded articular face (Fig. 3 N, O, P) recalls the anterior half of the dorsal centra of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (Stromer, 1915; Pl.2, Figs. 3 and 4, 5, 6). These teeth and vertebrae suggest the taxon represented in the Laje do Coringa site to be congeneric with that of the northern Africangenus (Medeiros and Schultz, 2001, 2002)." ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, in that case, you are making some conclusions that the source doesn't specifically say; it doesn't mention "Spinosaurus sp.", and it doesn't say there are necessarily more than one taxon. All it says is that it is similar to Spinosaurus and may belong to the same genus. It might seem obvious to infer what you did, but that is a step too far from the source. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus sp. is how it is referred to in many places of the paper, a table listing the fauna assemblage includes it as well. One or more teeth found at the formation were also referred to Spinosaurus sp., so I didn't really infer anything. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that wasn't clear from the quote you added, but since it is referred to as such elsewhere, it should be fine. Makes one wonder what sets it apart from Oxalaia, though... FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, the tooth referred to Spinosaurus sp. isn't discussed in detail, though another group of spinosaurid teeth found at the formation are described as "having no longitudinal enamel flutes". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 00:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biota is a collective word, you can't use it as in "full of many biota". You can say the biota is shared, or many lifeforms were found both places. Also, "full of" seems excessive, we can't know how abundant any lifeforms were. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 05:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, I've expanded the article a lot more, using Paranthodon and Dromaeosauroides as examples is really helping. You can check on my edits and tell me if there's any changes needed, especially on the two last, more major ones. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 01:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. At this point, I don't think there's much more I can add (perhaps expand the intro a little), so we can hope some other reviewers join in. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did as such, is this amount good? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 02:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, the important thing is just to let the intro summarise the entire article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk It's been over a week now, anyone we can perhaps ping for more opinions? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or you can perhaps add notices on talk pages of relevant projects. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalaia shares a close relation to the African Spinosaurus. --> you mean "Oxalaia is closely related to the African Spinosaurus."? (otherwise makes me wonder who is the relation they are sharing...

Done

had a few distinct craniodental features - can we simplify to " had a few distinct features of teeth and cranium"?

Both

Done ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a graph of a size chart but no discussion. Are the skull elements larger or smaller than those of spinosaurus. I presume there have been estimates done of its size? This should be added (with big caveats based on the paucity of remains to work with!).

Done Well spotted! I thought I included everything in the Kellner et al. paper. Added that info, and a ref on the Dal Sasso reconstruction. How's that look? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the article is shaping up nicely and I think worth a tilt at FAC Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, been working a while on this one, and I'm happy to see how much it's grown and improved. Also, I requested a copy-edit on the article[4] a few weeks ago, should be coming pretty soon. Although any peer review issues should be cleared up beforehand, as the article needs to be stable. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging FunkMonk, Cas Liber, and Jens Lallensack for input on what are probably the last major additions[5] before the article gets copy edited and then reviewed for FAC. Also pinging Jonesey95, if you'd be so kind to check for proper ref consistency and formatting once more. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no further comment, I'm archiving the review, and clearing the article for copy-editing at the guild. The FAC should clear up any further issues anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]