| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I was actually planning on nominating this article to FA, but it's quite a long article, and I wanna make sure it's as understandable and elaborate as possible. Pteranodon is also one of the most famous pterosaurs, and it's currently a GA, so I just want this article to be reviewed as well as possible before nominating it to FA. I'm also doing some minor fixes and improvements to make the article better.
A big Thanks, JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is quite some distance from FA, it doesn't even seem to have gotten a proper GA review, just a dive-by pass.[1] Also, FACs should be nominated by their main writers, to make sure they are familiar with the sources. Most of this article was written year ago, and it has hardly been updated with newer sources since, so everything that has been published in the meantime should be checked and added. There also seems to be some studies underway that may shake up the taxonomy, so I would personally wait for that to be published. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. Though I'll still try my best to make the article as good as it can be, if that's okay. Short mention: I've read some of the parts of the article, and MANY segments need to be clarified or expanded a bit for more understanding, I honestly don't even know where I got the idea of nominating it for FA with this current version. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, one thing you could do is proof-read the article for any errors, then check Google Scholar for relevant papers, and if there is something you can't access, request it at WP:RX. Then add anything it needs, and then we can go from there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for the tips. Though this might have to wait a bit, 'cause I've nominated Ornithocheiromorpha for GA, and it's currently on review, so I'm gonna focus on that first. Once that's finished, we can probably start, or at least get this article to a more elaborate status. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would recommend practicing on an easier subject before something with such a huge literature like this, for example a pterosaur genus recently published in a CC licenced paper and with an article that still needs expansion. Maybe the fellow pteranodontid Tethydraco? Though such scrappy remains may not be interesting to write about, there are of course many other contenders. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm somehow reformatting the Pteranodon article in my sandbox, I'm still within the description, and the lack of references in the history section was because the references were placed in the "Further reading" section of the article. I've also restructured several paragraphs, and I'm planning on doing more research about the skeletal anatomy of Pteranodon within the sources, like you said. As for Tethydraco, don't know much on the subject, even if I'm a fan of every pterosaur, but I'll take into account your suggestion. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would this paper be valid for a conclusion of the diet of Pteranodon, or at least a mention? The paper does say "Ornithocheiroids", not "Ornithocheirids", and the group Pteranodontia is within Ornithocheiroidea, so it could work, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, since Pteranodon didn't have teeth, I think it's a bit of a stretch to apply a study of tooth enamel to it. We can be pretty sure Pteranodon fed differently from something with teeth. Also, only pterosaurs from two formations seem to have been studied, and the results were not even the same for those. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was actually also thinking about that, though Pteranodon did feed on fish, same for, let's say Tropeognathus? But then again, it's still better not to put it, since Pteranodon isn't toothed. I will try to find more papers that conclude more on the diet of Pteranodon for more accuracy. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also note that's just an abstract for a talk, not an actual paper. If it's to be used, it should be for taxa found in the respective formations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, for example Uktenadactylus from the Paw Paw Formation, but we're here for Pteranodon, so doesn't count. Also, if you don't mind, could you check the history section of my sandbox Pteranodon for any mistakes? I know it's a long way to the end, but I'll try to make it as understandable as possible. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at first glance, you state things like "Marsh's rival Edward Drinker Cope had also" and "This then resulted in a dispute between the two paleontologists, which both fought over whose names had priority", but both cited to Marsh papers. It seems pretty unlikely he would write such details in papers, and such claims should be cited to secondary sources anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- So doesn't fit then? The citations are both of Marsh and Cope papers, but I guess such as elaborate details won't be written in those papers anyway. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well the issue is, do those sources actually say those things? Because much of it seems to be WP:editorializing, and not something that would be written by them themselves. Did Marsh himself say they "fought" or were rivals? If not, where is this info sourced from? We of course know these things are true, but it needs to be stated in the sources used. That's where secondary sources come in handy. I think maybe the book Oceans of Kansas might have some such info, or some of the papers by Chris Bennett. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the original article there were references by Chris Bennett, though I've removed them in my sandbox 'cause they looked confusing or something, but I guess I now know why those were cited there, so better put them back then, huh? Looks like I'm still learning new stuff! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, and for FAC or GAN, you'll have to be familiar with the sources already used, so you know whether they support the text or not, before removing or adding anything. So the best way forward is to skim the sources, some of them are online, others will have to be requested. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the original article there were references by Chris Bennett, though I've removed them in my sandbox 'cause they looked confusing or something, but I guess I now know why those were cited there, so better put them back then, huh? Looks like I'm still learning new stuff! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well the issue is, do those sources actually say those things? Because much of it seems to be WP:editorializing, and not something that would be written by them themselves. Did Marsh himself say they "fought" or were rivals? If not, where is this info sourced from? We of course know these things are true, but it needs to be stated in the sources used. That's where secondary sources come in handy. I think maybe the book Oceans of Kansas might have some such info, or some of the papers by Chris Bennett. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So doesn't fit then? The citations are both of Marsh and Cope papers, but I guess such as elaborate details won't be written in those papers anyway. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at first glance, you state things like "Marsh's rival Edward Drinker Cope had also" and "This then resulted in a dispute between the two paleontologists, which both fought over whose names had priority", but both cited to Marsh papers. It seems pretty unlikely he would write such details in papers, and such claims should be cited to secondary sources anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, for example Uktenadactylus from the Paw Paw Formation, but we're here for Pteranodon, so doesn't count. Also, if you don't mind, could you check the history section of my sandbox Pteranodon for any mistakes? I know it's a long way to the end, but I'll try to make it as understandable as possible. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also note that's just an abstract for a talk, not an actual paper. If it's to be used, it should be for taxa found in the respective formations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was actually also thinking about that, though Pteranodon did feed on fish, same for, let's say Tropeognathus? But then again, it's still better not to put it, since Pteranodon isn't toothed. I will try to find more papers that conclude more on the diet of Pteranodon for more accuracy. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, since Pteranodon didn't have teeth, I think it's a bit of a stretch to apply a study of tooth enamel to it. We can be pretty sure Pteranodon fed differently from something with teeth. Also, only pterosaurs from two formations seem to have been studied, and the results were not even the same for those. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Would this paper be valid for a conclusion of the diet of Pteranodon, or at least a mention? The paper does say "Ornithocheiroids", not "Ornithocheirids", and the group Pteranodontia is within Ornithocheiroidea, so it could work, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm somehow reformatting the Pteranodon article in my sandbox, I'm still within the description, and the lack of references in the history section was because the references were placed in the "Further reading" section of the article. I've also restructured several paragraphs, and I'm planning on doing more research about the skeletal anatomy of Pteranodon within the sources, like you said. As for Tethydraco, don't know much on the subject, even if I'm a fan of every pterosaur, but I'll take into account your suggestion. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would recommend practicing on an easier subject before something with such a huge literature like this, for example a pterosaur genus recently published in a CC licenced paper and with an article that still needs expansion. Maybe the fellow pteranodontid Tethydraco? Though such scrappy remains may not be interesting to write about, there are of course many other contenders. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for the tips. Though this might have to wait a bit, 'cause I've nominated Ornithocheiromorpha for GA, and it's currently on review, so I'm gonna focus on that first. Once that's finished, we can probably start, or at least get this article to a more elaborate status. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, one thing you could do is proof-read the article for any errors, then check Google Scholar for relevant papers, and if there is something you can't access, request it at WP:RX. Then add anything it needs, and then we can go from there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. Though I'll still try my best to make the article as good as it can be, if that's okay. Short mention: I've read some of the parts of the article, and MANY segments need to be clarified or expanded a bit for more understanding, I honestly don't even know where I got the idea of nominating it for FA with this current version. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)