Talk:Phosphatodraco

Phosphatodraco 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 November 24, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 19, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
October 7, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Phosphatodraco 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I take the point that this needs a taxonomic box, though the same could be said of any number of palaeontological articles. But how is this categorised wrongly? Why Tree of Life? I cannot find any pterosaur article so categorised. If you are going to slap on a tag please explain yourself. --Gazzster 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

You should spell out the cervical vertebrae are in the neck in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already is? "consisting of five cervical (neck) vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to convert to ftin rather than just ft or just in Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. I use metrics myself too.

"the first preserved vertebra" I thought this meant C1/C1+C2 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it could be clearer in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauretania only refers to the Roman provinces Mauretania Caesariensis, Mauretania Tingitana, and Mauretania Sitifensis in the northwestern African Mediterranean coast (and for a short time, the southern Spanish coast), not all of North Africa Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all the source says, we can't really change their etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you wikilink Rabat but not Casablanca? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked under first paragraph, "(OCP, located in Casablanca)", FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"called the issue 'controversial' " seems unnecessary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite important for the context, as it shows they refrained from taking sides. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's implied when they say it's impossible to choose one side or the other because the remains are too fragmentary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Description you put parentheses next to a convert template, so it displays as two parentheticals right next to each other Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Characteristics of azhdarchid cervical vertebrae.png has the incorrect license listed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PeerJ says "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah CC-BY, the Commons says it's CC-BY-SA Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked those from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Size disparity of late Maastrichtian pterosaurs and birds.svg Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ones from that journal. One problem is that the Plos template on Commons gives an outdated licence:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, I still need to explain some anatomical terms, but otherwise should be ready for a look-over. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The following C7 vertebra (Kellner's C6[7]) is shown in bottom view" are you referring to a picture? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola and colleagues, which is shown in hind view" I think these kinds of things would go better in the caption Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They expressed hope that their study would inspire more research into the lifestyle of azhdarchids besides just their flight capability." I don't get why this is necessary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]