Talk:Brachiosaurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, I'll ping the other main editors; LittleJerry, Jens Lallensack, MWAK, IJReid, Casliber. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

File:Brachiosaurus scale 1.svg, File:Brachiosaurus DB.jpg, and File:Brachiosaurus nougaredi Sacrum.png don't have a source line to verify that they're accurate User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Slate Weasel to add source to the size comparison. Added sources to the other two. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used Hartman's skeletal to adjust the proportions of Dinoguy's chart. I'll add this to the file description. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brontosaurus skeleton 1880s.jpg needs a US PD tag User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source for File:Altithorax.jpg says, "© The Field Museum, CSGEO3251" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The important part is that it is from 1899, therefore no one can claim copyright over it (published in the US before 1923). FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

refs no. 6, 53, 63, 65, and 77 aren't formatted correctly User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk:, I think you should do this. I don't know how to format some of these. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with 53. Fixed the rest; note that anything with a doi is extremely easy to add, enable the cite tools in the tool box, go to templates> journals, and paste the doi in the relevant field, then it will be filled out for you automatically. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 7 has an ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

refs no. 13, 15, and 51 are missing a doi, pmc, and pmid User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two fixed by bot, the last by me. Citationbot is getting good! FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 16 is missing a doi User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 17 has a url https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/79f9/c4da180426c779e0b4de9139571da5151e38.pdf and needs a doi User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added link. It doesn't have a doi. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the doi is 10.1525/california/9780520246232.003.0009 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

refs no. 37 and 38 have deadlink tags User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link for 37. Can't find archived one for 38. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be found with wayback machine, here's the link for 38:[1] It doesn't seem like the source entirely supports the statement in the article, though, so another source will have to be found. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're taking this to FA so you wanna be consistent with the JSTOR links User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is meant by this, I see one JSTOR link. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, so if you want to provide JSTOR links, then you need to provide them for all references that have JSTOR links or none at all. More than just that ref has a JSTOR number User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange this isn't added by Citationbot, I have requested the feature.[2] Not sure how to check which articles are on JSTOR or not without manually plowing through them all. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 55 has a url http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/Janensch%201961%20-%20limbs%20of%20Tendaguru%20sauropods.pdf

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 58 needs a |language= parameter User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be there. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ref no. 62 now from all the shuffling User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 61 needs the parameters |translator-first= and translator-last= as Matthew Carrano User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 68 needs a PMID 15252977 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added by Citationbot. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 74 has a url http://libsysdigi.library.illinois.edu/oca/Books2008-08/infieldbulletino/infieldbulletino70fiel/infieldbulletino70fiel.pdf

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 77 has an ISBN 978-0-253-34870-8

Seems to be there. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

convert the ISBN in ref no. 78 to ISBN-13 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran the Citationbot, which fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 84 has an ISBN 978-0-253-35508-9 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

refs no. 92 and 94 have a url http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/803 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is ref no. 102? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A link to an entry on the Star Wars website, which is now dead but archived. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the trunk and how's it different from the neck? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trunk is the torso. Of course, then you might ask "What is the torso?" and we could only only answer "the trunk" :o). We cannot explain the most basic of anatomical terms; in the end we must refer the reader to a dictionary or general anatomical article.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay because when I see trunk I think either proboscis or neck User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't wanna change trunk to torso because you eventually end up using trunk for proboscis User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's "the so-called laminae" supposed to mean? Also, what's a lamina? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain that in the text.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it now, the original way it was worded made it sound like they're technically laminae but not really or something User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of, "Three further details of the laminae of the dorsal vertebrae are only known from Giraffatitan, and are absent in other sauropods including Brachiosaurus" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain that.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get above 100 cm you should probably start using meters User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that policy? I don't think 1.01 m is more readable than 101 cm.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to if you don't want to User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say the nostrils were on the snout? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but as the text states "at the front of the narial fossa, the depression which extended far in front of the bony nostril towards the snout." So saying "on the snout" would be a bit misleading, as the source doesn't actually say "on the snout". FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they're on the snout (rostrum) but not at the tip. We can change it into "towards the snout tip". It would be useful if the image also indicates the bony nostrils. Most people take them for the eye sockets :o)--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because I wouldn't have gotten that because "extended far in front of the bony nostril" means absolutely nothing to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though this[3] diagram has some issues, might it be a good substitute for the Witmer brachiosaur figure? A bit annoying that option a doesn't show the nostrils on the very top of the head... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will make a new diagram based on Witmer's figure. The old image there has too many issues that are hard to fix since it's a 3D model. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made a request for said image here instead:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say he suggested that the specimen was the largest known dinosaur, it makes it sound like he didn't point-blank say it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it into "emphasized". Of course, this has the drawback that we now suggest that this claim is true, while Amphicoelias had already been discovered. We can't use "claimed" or "stated" because article titles don't really claim or state.--MWAK (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "...Field Museum's first home," mean?

Changed into "first location".--MWAK (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink squamosal, quadrate, pterygoid, junior synonym, Tendaguru Formation, pneumatization, pleurocoels User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to pitch in and link all of those except Tendaguru (it's linked in the lead, although should it also be linked in the body?) and pleurocoels (plural link doesn't work, singular link redirects to pneumatization. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanlks, yeah, everything linked in the lead should also be linked at first mention in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and if you can’t wikilink pleurocoel, you should probably explain what they are in-text like you do for some other terms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the vertebrae were destroyed in the Felch specimen how'd they assign the skull to Brachiosaurus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By being most similar to that of Giraffatitan, which was then included in Brachiosaurus, and by default, since Brachiosaurus is the only brachiosaurid known from the Morrison Formation. I added the following sentence to clarify: "They based the skull's assignment to Brachiosaurus on its similarity to that of B. brancai, later known as Giraffatitan." FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use spaces with en dashes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Paul Upchurch, Barret and Peter Dodson" you're inconsistent with the serial comma User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a comma.--MWAK (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you italicize Muséum national d'histoire naturelle? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's French.--MWAK (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that’s fair User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a lot of commas in the Classification section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few.--MWAK (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The exact status of each sauropod varies from study to study. E.g., a" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact problem here?--MWAK (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can’t start a sentence with e.g., so it’s “...from study to study, e.g., a...” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the "e.g." further-on.--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...up–and–down jaw motion," this is when you use hyphens User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

need {{convert}} in the Feeding and diet section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're there. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the last sentence of the 4th paragraph of Feeding and diet User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, when you say the nostrils were on top of the head, do you mean at the top of the head or on the topside of the snout? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the head. Take a look at the Felch Skull. Those large openings at the top are the bony nostrils. The fleshy nostrils would be even higher, opening upwards.--MWAK (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"154-153 million years ago," you wanna use dashes here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and was at the top trophic level of the Morrison food web," another option is, "was the apex predator," less wordy User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the only one. LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's about it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I think we did everything. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’ll just read the article one more time and that’ll be that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "...but none of them are currently thought to belong to Brachiosaurus," do you wanna say, "but none are valid"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You skip the Cultural significance section in the lead User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it'll pass GA. See you at FA User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]