Talk:Istiodactylus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Istiodactylus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Istiodactylus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
July 22, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Istiodactylus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology: Pterosaurs Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pterosaurs task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

What to do with I. sinensis?

It seems no one considers I. sinensis to belong to Istiodactylus, the question is rather where it belongs instead. In that sense, it is de facto removed from this genus, so since I am about to expand the article for promotion, I'm wondering how to treat that species here. It definitely warrants discussion in the history and classification sections, but should this article really go into detail about it's physical features and ecology, given that it is bound to become part of some other genus in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put info on it in its own article. Then if it ever gets a new genus name the title can be changed. In the mean time, since this is the only name it has, at least it's searchable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one thing about that is, in the unlikely case we write a long description of I. sinensis there, and it turns out to be a junior synonym of for example Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, how are the two descriptions of the same species consolidated? FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've consolidated bigger articles before. And, if they are synonyms or even possible synonyms, there technically shouldn't be any differences in their descriptions anyway. Anything that had previously been different between them would have turned out to be based on misinterpretation and would be deleted anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it is so common that we split longer articles compared to merging them that I didn't really remember what the procedure would be like. But in any case, pterosaur taxonomy seems a lot more unstable than dinosaur taxonomy, so it's quite a mine-field... FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was working on some species in the Ornithocheirus complex he other day... (see Ptenodactylus). I think in situations like these we just need species-level articles titled with the original or most traditional name, then discuss possible alternative nomenclature in the text. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, an earlier version of the article stated "In 2006 Lü Jun-Chang e.a. concluded I. sinensis was a junior synonym of the istiodactylid Nurhachius", apparently citing this Chinese book.[1] But Witton does not mention that I. sinsensis had previously been proposed as a synonym, in either his 2012 paper or 2013 book. Does anyone know whether this is actually mentioned in the Chinese book, or some kind of mistake? This 2006 paper[2] seems relevant, but it doesn't mention I. sinsensis. It also seems a bit quick for a book published in 2006 to declare a taxon named the same year a synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Istiodactylus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look...you know the drill. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't expect the GA review to come any time soon, so I have some issues from the copy-edit that I need to fix up! Will do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wondering why you're using mm instead of cm in article...~~

That's what the sources do, but I can see it may be a bit confusing for most readers... Changed to cm. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The skull was relatively short and broad compared to most other pterosaurs - looks odd as you've said it was elongated in the sentence before. Also "skull" appears in 3 consecutive sentences, though might be unavoidable...

Removed "elongated" and merged two related sentences (which snipped one "skull"). FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anything we can add on climate to the Palaeoecology section?~~

Not from the sources I found (I think), but I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which may be helpful: [3][4] Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, that's pretty perfect! Wonder why I haven't found those. By the way, know any papers that list the animals in the Vectis Formation, Lythronaxargestes? Haven't been able to find any, and Istiodactylus is also known from there... FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No luck. I assume it's not as well-studied as the Wealden and Wessex. The 2001 Martill & Naish IoW field guide may be helpful in this regard, but it's evidently quite difficult to access. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Climate and plant info now added! FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well. Will have another look tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered some things above (and fixed issues form copy-edit). If everything goes well, we'll have our first pterosaur FAC soon... FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay. will read through again soon. It's Sunday morning here and a few chores beckon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Earwig's copyvio clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

- only slight quibble is why "rediscovered" is in quotation marks, but not a deal-breaker.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

nice read/well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.