Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atrociraptor/archive1

Atrociraptor

Atrociraptor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 11 September 2024, 19:10 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Atrociraptor/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a dromaeosaurid (or "raptor") dinosaur in more than a decade, and this particular genus has recently become (in)famous as antagonist in a recent Jurassic World movie. Because their portrayal in that film is atrociously inaccurate, improving this article will hopefully set the record straight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• No date for Currie and Varricchio?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• No publisher location for Allison and Bottjer?

Looks like this has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• "that lived during the Late Cretaceous of what is now Alberta, Canada". "of" → 'in'?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• "restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth". "it" → 'them'?

Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• "indicate it survived later as well" doesn't really work for me. Why not just say 'indicate it survived for over 2 million years'?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• "It lived alongside a variety of dinosaurs". 1. Why single out dinosaurs? 2. "it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" seems to indicate that the lead is stronger than warrented.

I just removed the sentence, goes without saying it lived alongside other animals... FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the fossil collector Wayne Marshall". Was this his occupation, or a hobby?

The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

'the part-time fossil collector'?

Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• "about 1 cm (0.39 in)". Looks a bit false precision to me.
• "serrations per 1 mm (0.039 in)." Similarly, and elsewhere.

What would be the solution to these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Added the sigfig parameter here and elsewhere, as suggested below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "from the Latin words atroci". Foreign language words (which are not proper nouns) should be in lang templates, not just italicised.

Added. But what's the point of those templates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Lang, "The purpose of this template is to indicate that a span of text belongs to a particular language. It often makes no visible changes to the text but can prompt web browsers to use a more appropriate font or screen readers to use a particular kind of pronunciation and so on."

• "rather than that the snout was shortened." I feel that 'rather than because the snout was shortened' makes for an easier read.

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Lead: "in the teeth being almost all the same size"; main article: "the teeth have different sizes but the same form".

Ouch, I think that was left in from the original version, changed to "(the teeth being of similar size)". FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• " the clarity of the interrelationships recovered in their phylogenetic analyses." I "recovered" the best word to use here?
• "in a clade more derived than Saurornitholestinae". I don't think that a non-specialist audience will understand this.
• "but included more taxa which had been described in the interim." Maybe 'but included additional taxa which had been described in the interim'?
• "contains data for a wide number of coelurosaurian taxa". What is a "wide number"?
• "Atrociraptor has been consistently recovered as a member of Saurornitholestinae." I think you need to define "recovered" somewhere, or use a different expression.
• "and does not have a generally agreed-upon answer." I am (very) unsure what the question is that is unanswered.
• "then they may have been recent immigrants". More recent than what?
• "This hypothesis is supported by the possibility". Can a hypothesis be supported by a possibility. Optional: is there a better way of phrasing this?
• "ranged from using the claws for slashing or climbing up prey larger than themselves." If you use "ranged from" the options should be separated by 'to', not "or".

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "a shift from using the feet instead of the hands for restraining prey". I'm confused. Should "from" be 'to'?~

Oh yeah, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Horseshoe Canyon Formation, no links?

It's linked in the intro and at first mention in the article body (discovery). Want one more further down? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Iss "the Horsethief Member" the same as the Horsethief Sandstone?

A Cynical Idealist is probably best at determining this. If that's the case, then alternative title should at least redirect, or become the new title of that article. Or it should perhaps be merged into the formation's article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a different unit, they are not the same. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• "a much wider geographic and temporal distribution than initially suggested." Suggested by whom, when and what was the suggestion?
• "corresponds to "poorly-drained" sediments rich with organic material. The sediments of the Horsetheif Member are composed primarily of coal, shales, sandstones, and mudstones. These sediments are rich with organic materials, which reflect a highly saturated environment". "... rich with organic material ... rich with organic materials ..."
• Caption: "Several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where the first Atrociraptor specimen was found". Do you mean 'Several dinosaurs are known from the Horsethief Member of ..." or 'Conjectural reconstructions of several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of ...'?

Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think the unexplained "tooth-taxon" is a bit much for a non-specialist reader.
• "The absence of these fossils from the older members does not necessarily mean that these taxa did not exist at that time, and may simply be reflective of the fossil bias which makes the preservation of small-bodied animals less likely." Is fine. "Remains of smaller animals are also common in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. " Is fine. When the former is immediately followed by the latter, the word "also" reads oddly.

That's it from me. Another fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made the changes you suggested to the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. Word choice was refined, repetition of phrases was removed, and technical language (recovered, derived, tooth-taxon, etc) has been removed or explained. As mentioned above, the "Horsethief Member" of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (in Alberta) is unrelated to the "Horsethief Sandstone" (in Montana). "Horsethief" seems to just be a common name for landforms in western North America.

Thank you for your input. @FunkMonk wrote the remainder of the article and I'll leave the changes you suggested to those other sections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed "my" issues, so it seems everything else is done if ACI fixed the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, I added that to the beginning of the phylogeny section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• "although they did directly comment on the placement of Atrociraptor in their analysis." Just checking that there isn't a "not" missing from this.
• "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of the deep-snouted Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for them." I am not sure that the last two words are needed.

Tried to rephrase, any better? "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for these deep-snouted dromaeosaurids." FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years and in a wider geographic area." Wider than what? (You can't say wider than a single location.) Perhaps '... and in a wide geographic area'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A Cynical Idealist is probably best at answering the last two points. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I already fixed the missing "not" and changed "wider" to "wide". All the other suggested changes to the classification and paleoecology sections have been implemented. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll try to review this sometime ovver the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping me when Gog's concerns have been addressed, and I'll start my review then. Hog Farm _Talk 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's about now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "about 5 km (3.1 mi) from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology," - I'd argue that this is false precision as well. There's a way to round this off in the conversion template using the sigfig= parameter

Added sigfig there and elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Atrociraptor mainly differs from its contemporary relatives Bambiraptor, Saurornitholestes, and Velociraptor in that its face is much deeper, and in that its maxillary teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and in the teeth being almost all the same size" - this may need some rephrasing. The reader is later told that the maxillary teeth being inclined backwards is also a feature of Bambiraptor. The teeth being the same size is contrasted against Velociraptor. When I first read this quoted sentence, it read as if all of these these three features were the series of distinct things that set Atrociraptor apart from all these species. I don't know if there is a good way to clarify this, though

These particular features are singled out in the intro because they were singled out in the description paper's abstract. About the teeth, it does say "more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids", which leaves room for exceptions like Atrociraptor (as is done in the abstract). I tried to rephrase it like this (closer to the source), if it makes any difference: "Atrociraptor differs from its contemporary relatives in that its face is much deeper, and its teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and are almost all the same size." FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• "and, unusually for dromaeosurids, there are no gaps left by shed teeth." - is this referring specifically to the absence of tooth loss in the holotype? I know this is a description of the holotype, but I'm concerned that the lay reader will try to apply this to the species as a whole, and wonder if the teeth regrew, or shifted after the loss of a tooth, etc, and lead to confusion

Unfortunately the source doesn't specify, but since we know they would have shed their teeth, it's pretty certain they just mean this specimen, so I've added "in the holotype" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• " The maxillary teeth have larger serrations on their front cutting edge, 3-4.5 per mm, than behind, 5–8 per mm." - this doesn't seem right - p. 122 of the source has 3-4.5 on the posterior and 5-8 on the anterior; compare also to "The serrations at the front are smaller and more numerous, 5–8 per mm, than those behind, 3.5–5." when discussing the dentary teeth; I wouldn't expect the front/back characteristics of the serrations to be reversed on the maxillary and dentary teeth

Yeah, swapped front and back at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The uncertainty around the classification of Atrociraptor would not be resolved for some time." - has this actually been resolved as of 2024 (or ever will be, without further material discoveries?)

I've removed this sentence because it doesn't really seem to reflect what's said by the sources, but is verging on editorialising. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• " the fragmentary remains of a dromaeosaurid jaw from the Prince Creek Formation" - I think its necessary to indicate where the Prince Creek Formation is located

Added "from Alaska". FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the Evolutionary implications section needs either a closer tying to Atrociraptor specifically, or a bit of a trimming; as it currently stands this is more general material on the eudromaeosaurs. The title implies that Atrociraptor itself has particular evolutionary implications, but what these implications are on say the third paragraph remain unclear

A Cynical Idealist is probably best at solving this one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think its best to just remove the whole section. The paleobiogeography of Atrociraptor is not really extricable from a general discussion of eudromaeosaurs. If that generality is a core issue with its inclusion as a section, then removal may be the best option. None of the listed sources really comment on Atrociraptor in isolation other than in a discussion of the taxonomic uncertainty and its possible implications on geographic and temporal dispersal. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think removing it all may be a bit too drastic, as while it may have been too detailed before, it did have relevance to how and when Atrociraptor appeared and its wider context. Most other dinosaur FAs go into these issues, so I think a trimming would have been enough. What do Hog Farm and Jens Lallensack think? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the section is not about Atrociraptor and does not need to be here. Maybe you could add something about it to the beginning of the phylogeny section, to provide some (very basic and brief) background about eudromaeosaurs before going into the classification details; for example, you could state there that velociraptorines are a primarily Asian group and saurornitholestines are North American, and that it is debated whether Eudromaeosaurs evolved in North America or Asia, and that faunal exchange might have happend in the early Maastrichtian via the Bering landbridge. I would furthermore suggest to move the deleted section to the Eudromaeosauria article, I think it fits there well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently close to finished with a very extensive rewrite of Eudromaeosauria, so don't worry, there will be ample discussion of it there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the subject probably didn't need an entire section to begin with, but I think the following brief paragraph could be kept for context: "The pattern of eudromaeosaur dispersal is controversial among scientists. Some researchers have suggested that saurornitholestines are the earliest-diverging members of this group. If that is the case, it suggests a North American origin for Eudromaeosauria. However, if saurornitholestines are more closely related to velociraptorines, then they may have immigrated to North America from Asia closer to the end of the Cretaceous." FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason why poorly-drained is in quotation marks?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me; I hope the above make sense. I'm personally a bit skeptical of the tendency of dinosaur research to assign new species/genus from extremely fragmentary remains; I suspect that in a hypothetical world in the far future where dogs have gone extinct and dog fossils are dug up that the German Shepherd and the chihuahua would be assigned as diferrent genera, but that is neither here nor there. Hog Farm _Talk 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in dinosaur palaeontology in particular there is a tendency to lean to the "splitting" side, where almost every species gets its own genus (though there are some notable exceptions). But since we don't have dinosaur DNA to properly conclude relations from, that may the most stable way to do it, since otherwise a species will often be moved to a new genus in every other paper where someone finds it more similar to something else. Taxonomy is a very arbitrary field in general... In this case, though, no one has moved it to another genus, which indicates it is actually considered distinct "enough" by most researchers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the reduction of the implications section is much improved; I'm happy to support now. Hog Farm _Talk 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comment

The generic name is derived from the Latin words atroci, which means "savage", and raptor, "robber". For atroci read atrox. By convention when referring to Latin nouns or adjectives as words, we use the nominative singular form, which is how they are listed in modern dictionaries. Choliamb (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We're aware, problem is that the source (the original description) says "Etymology: "Atroci" is a Latin word meaning savage, whereas "raptor" is Latin for robber". No other sources about this animal give a detailed etymology, so the question is how far we can veer off the source without going into WP:OR and WP:synth territory. Since the source seems to translate the component words with the form they appear in the name, it doesn't seem to be inaccurate as such, just unconventional. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Gog: The generic name is derived from atrox. The uninflected stem of the adjective atrox is atroc-, and for that reason atroc(i)- is the form used when attaching suffixes and forming compounds: cf. the Latin derivatives atrocitas and atrociter, or the English derivatives atrocious and atrocity. All of these are ultimately derived from atrox (check any etymological dictionary). For comparison, you can see the same pattern in the generic name of another therapod, Ornithomimus, the first part of which is derived from ὄρνις (ornis), the Greek word for bird. The uninflected stem of the noun ornis is ornith-, and for that reason ornith(o)- is the form that we use when creating compound words like Ornithomimus or Ornithopoda or ornithology. The WP articles for all of these words correctly state that they are derived from ornis, not ornitho-, because ornitho- has no independent existence; it is simply a form of ornis. The relationship between atrox and atroci- is exactly the same. Compounds begining with ornitho- are derived from ornis; compounds beginning with atroci- are derived from atrox.

FunkMonk: Yes, I see your problem. If the source makes this mistake, and no other source gives the correct form, then I suppose your hands are tied by WP policy. A pity, but there it is. In any case, I've made my comment, so I'll be moving on now. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[1]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the word, using the site linked in the first comment as citation, though I'm not sure if it's formatted correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Only few comments from me, since I've already done the GA review.
• Now that we have a skeletal diagram, maybe we can produce an additional figure out of that: Crop out the head, and add labels of all the terms mentioned in the text? It would be so much more factual and more helpful than the Dromaeosaurus skull. Happy to help out with that if needed.

Comparing with the published figures, I'm not sure it matches 100% to be used directly. But I'll tag the artist, Mettiina, about a closer skull only version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Because of this inclination, the tooth enamel at the base of the teeth is also inclined, whereas in Saurornitholestes, Dromaeosaurus, and other relatives where the teeth are oriented more vertically, the enamel is almost perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the teeth – I am still not quite sure what this means. The enamel is the outer layer of the tooth, so if the tooth is inclined at any given point, the tooth must have the same inclination at that point. I do not really see what this adds, and you already discuss tooth inclination in great depth, so I would suggest to just remove this sentence, it is a bit too much imo.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• A 2011 study by the palaeontologist Denver W. Fowler and colleagues found these ideas unlikely – You clearly give preference to this particular hypothesis while discarding the others. Do we have any secondary source that states that this hypothesis is now the favoured one? Or is this hypothesis of particular relevance for this genus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is a much newer source on the topic [2], which also suggest a function of the claw in restraining smaller prey. So it indeed looks like this is now the favoured hypothesis, but that newer study should be incorporated I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The current text probably goes too much into that one paper, will see if I can make a more general rewrite reflecting more views more equally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Expanded a bit with the newer study, as you say, it agrees with the Fowler study, but also seems to suggest some additional functions. Also added an image from the paper, don't know if using both is too much in that section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• The "Description" section relies exlusively on the 2004 paper that names this genus. Any reason the Powers et al. 2022 paper is not cited there even though it has two pages discussing the anatomy of Atrociraptor (p. 8–9)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I could see, all of it was very detailed description of non-diagnostic features that wouldn't really add much to the text (similar to other text from the original description that was left out). But perhaps you or A Cynical Idealist see something useful I overlooked? FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have to read the original description to make an assessment of the independent value of Powers et al 2022. Glancing over the Powers paper, it seems to mostly just be comparisons with other taxa. Maybe there could be a paragraph added to the description specifically noting the morphological similarities with other taxa? Other than that, I doubt there's that much more to add. Its only 4 bones after all, so the original description can't have missed much. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That was also my impression, not much that adds to the general understanding for laymen. So since we already cut out some of that kind of stuff, I'm thinking adding more comparison of anatomical minutiae is a step back? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just wondering if any updates are needed because that paper is so much newer, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking good...

• "Horsetheif" is written several times in body...this is a typo for "Horsethief", right?

• Also, in the Contemporary fauna and flora section, why are the zones in double quotes as looks odd...?

• In the (in my view redundant) See also section - I can't see how one item is relevant as this critter was not in Jurassic Park (oops, missed that...in which case is it worth a few sentences somehow), and the Timeline of dromaeosaurid research is in the navbox at the bottom of the page

Do you think it would be worth adding a short sentence under discovery saying it was in the movie? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I added a mention, with the rather meta observation ""it's a very real dino with its own Wiki page and everything". FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all these. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, no deal-breakers remain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "The antorbital fenestra of Atrociraptor was relatively small compared to in other dromaeosaurids, with the portion in the maxilla taking up less than 43% its length": just checking there's no error here -- the dromaeosaurus skull diagram given shows an anterior fenestra apparently much smaller than this.

  Unless you mean the two small, unlabelled holes in the maxilla, yeah, it does seem like the antorbital fenestra is smaller here than in other reconstructions of Dromarosaurus.[3] So that could be a good reason to take up Jens Lallensack on the offer for making a new one? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Will see what I can do tomorrow! Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, fig. 20 in this paper has a newer skull reconstruction of Atroci for reference:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The new diagram has now been added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• "neurovasular" typo for "neurovascular"?

  Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The maxilla contains eleven teeth (similar to in other dromaeosaurids)": seems an odd thing to say -- do all other dromaeosaurids have eleven teeth in the maxilla? If so I'd make it "as do other". If not, what does "similar" mean -- a number similar to eleven?

  The source only says "The number of tooth positions compares well with most other dromaeosaurids". So it's a bit vague, but I changed to "(comparable to most other dromaeosaurids)", if that's any better. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "which suggests that the change in climate forced the small theropod to either move elsewhere or become extinct": suggest "which suggests that either the change in climate forced the small theropod to move elsewhere or it became extinct".

  This was partly done; I edited it a bit further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• You have a pair of spaced em dashes near the end of the article; per MOS:DASH you have to pick either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. You also have a couple of ranges that use em dashes, e.g. "71.5—69.6 million years": those should be spaced en dashes.

That's everything; all very minor. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I fixed the dashes, and I made the fix to "which suggests that the climate...". A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The spaced em dashes are still in the body text, and the ranges now have en dashes but they should be spaced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have removed all of the em dashes and replaced them with spaced en dashes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you used hyphens instead of en dashes? I went ahead and replaced them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "dromaeosaurids, and are almost" Comma unnecessary?

Removed, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• "skull such as the part" to "skull, such as the part"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link member in the lead and body, it's a very niche term.

Done there and in article body. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• "72.2 - 71.5" en-dash?

Looks like these were taken care of. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Since then, Marshall led" to "Since then, Marshall has led", although I'm not sure why this particular detail was mentioned.

Added, I think it's worth nothing that he has done more important work in the area. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Jurassic World Dominion, the director" to "Jurassic World Dominion, with the director"

Done, was actually how i first had it... FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why not quote the entire bit from Slashfilm ("might sound like another made-up hybrid dinosaur invented for the "Jurassic World" films...but it's a very real dino with its own Wiki page and everything") instead of loosely paraphrasing the first half?

Added the part you quoted, don't think the rest of the original sentence is necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• "relatively large prey, and to wound it" I'd have assumed prey would be plural. Also, comma unnecessary.

Removed comma, but not sure about prey. Isn't this a case similar to "group" being singular? Pinging Gog the Mild. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• "all dromaeosaurids, with their deep maxillae,"
• "velociraptorines, with their elongated snouts that allowed for rapid biting at the cost of power, perhaps"
• "become extinct" go extinct reads better to me, although this is just a preference
• "71.5 - 69.6" en-dash?
• "Albertonykus, in addition"
• Ref 7 should have the name of the site (which is actual Greek to me) instead of the url (logeion.uchicago.edu).
• Ref 9 (Sven 1997) looks like it has too large a page range, especially since it cites just one claim.

Shortened range. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• ref 12 (Eberth et al. 2010) looks like it has too large a page range.
• ref 19 (Turner 2012) has too large a page range.
• ref 24 (Evans et al. 2013) has an incorrect page range (1041–9)
• ref 37 (Allison 2010) the page range looks too large for a sentence-long claim.
• That's all I have. AryKun (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The spaced en-dashes were implemented per the review above by Mike Christie. I have fixed all of the reference errors. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 9 and 19 still look like the page range is too large, and you seem to have removed the page range for 24 entirely instead of adding the correct one. AryKun (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was not as thorough as I thought I was. I've corrected 19 and 24. Reference 9 was used by @FunkMonk, so I can't speak to the page range for that particular reference. The remainder of the suggested changes are to the portion of the article written by them, so I will leave those corrections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose since almost everything has been addressed, I'll let Gog weigh in on the grammatical number of "prey". AryKun (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)