Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brachiosaurus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 [1].

---

Brachiosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC), MWAK (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most iconic dinosaurs, and the first member of its family (Brachiosauridae) to be nominated for FAC. It is also one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. We believe most information published about the animal is summarised here, and the article is now a GA. The article came together as a WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a lead:

• "in the Colorado River valley in western Colorado, in the United States." Perhaps remove the last "in the"? Or "in the US state of Colorado".

Took your first option. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "However,"—I'd personally prefer "But", but it's up to you.

Just removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note, you can’t start a sentence with “But”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A unfounded superstition. Sentences starting with "But" are to be found in the King James Bible, in Shakespeare, and in modern authors such as Iris Murdoch. See p. 125 of the current edition of Fowler. Tim riley talk 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "are unlike most sauropods: the forelimbs were"—muddled tense?

Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "its tail was proportionally shorter than in most other sauropods."—inside them, the tail? Perhaps "than that of other".

Said "those of other". FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Most popular depictions of Brachiosaurus are in fact based on Giraffatitan, a genus of brachiosaurid dinosaur from the Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania that was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."—That's a looong sentence. "in fact" seems to flag contrast; it's a back-reference, is it? What was originally described: the genus or the location? Try: "... Tanzania. Giraffatitan was originally described by German paleontologist Werner Janensch in 1914 as a species of Brachiosaurus, B. brancai, but moved to its own genus in 2009."

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Three other species of Brachiosaurus have in the past been named, from Africa and Europe, but two them are currently thought to be invalid and a third has become the separate genus Lusotitan." Have in the future been named? "based on fossil evidence from Africa and Europe? Personally, I'd use a semicolon after Europe, but it's up to you. Do you need "of them"? Perhaps a separate genus, Lusotitan. Unsure. Does "currently" add anything?

reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The type specimen of B. altithorax that was originally described by Riggs in 1903 is"—remove two words.

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• probably and possibly?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "finds it to have been"—quite high certainty level. "suggests it was" would be lower. But your choice might well be what is reflected in the best sources.

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Brachiosaurus has appeared in popular culture, notably in the 1993 film Jurassic Park."—yeah, they're cute.

Are you suggesting to leave this fact out of the lead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I think it was just a statement. "Think of it as a big cow"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It was my attempt to be ironic/humorous. :-( Tony (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan probably possessed a small shoulder hump"—possessed ... sounds like a fashion handbag.

changed to a simple "had"; also removed the word throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs auditing throughout, though the lead may be the most problematic. Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence. And "most recently" ... but you give two sources. "more recently"? Fixes needed throughout. Tony (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "more recently". Is that in the same sentence that is too long? Or did you just reiterate the point about the sentence in the intro? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I get my points mangled? I'm not sure I understand your query. BTW, it's a very interesting article! Tony (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I mean what sentence does "Glancing at the next para I see a looong sentence" refer to? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My glitch. Size and general build subsections:

• "Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull, a long neck, a large trunk with a high-ellipsoid cross section, a long, muscular tail and slender, columnar limbs."—Is it just the large trucnk that had that cross-section, or the whole body. The former is indicated at the moment. And a serial comma after "tail" would clarify the list-item boundaries here.

It is the trunk that is meant. Fixed the comma. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• The estimates of size: they're surprisingly exact at one decimal point. Are they meant to be averages? The last estimate has a different precision ...

Not averages; these are single estimates as given in the sources, usually of the most complete specimen. The precision does not reflect the level of confidence (as the estimates range between 20 and 60 tonnes), and even rounding them up to get rid of the decimal point would suggest a higher precision than there actually is. We usually give decimal points when the sources do so (we also had that discussion in the German Wikipedia – same result). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So, would it be possible to convey this to non-expert readers, perhaps for the first list of mass (and we hope the reader will assume it's the same for the subsequent list), by adding "has been estimated on the basis of individual fossils at 35.0 ...."? (Italics mark the possible insert.) You have one ISO symbol "m" in that list, against the expanded forms. These lists are still cluttered, though. Why do we need the old British empire unit conversions in a scientific article? Our rules say: "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." It would be so much easier to read, even for American grade-school students (who do, after all, have learn about the metric system). Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue of conversions in science articles is a bit contentious, there was a long discussion about it here[2] (started by me), don't remember what the conclusion was, but it seems there was general agreement that "some special reason to do so" was too vague wording... FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, looking through that discussion again, it seems it was you, Tony, who created that guideline in the first place. I thought the issue had been solved after the long discussion and multiple proposals, but seems they were never implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Who told you Americans learn the metric system?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "In studies including estimates for both Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan, the latter was estimated at 31.5 metric tons"—"estimates/d" twice. And is there a reason to clutter up the proposition with "both x and y"? It's just about Giraffatitan. Why not just: "Giraffatitan's [average?] mass was estimated at ...". Were these estimates based on computational results using the sizes of fossilised bone samples? How many, about? Half a dozen, or scores? Just trying to get an idea of the reliability.

See also answer above. The reason for the clutter is that we can only compare estimates made in the same study, since the methodology for obtaining the estimates varies too much between studies. So these values must be compared to those for Brachiosaurus given in the previous paragraph, which is not ideal. I'm not sure how to make this clear, maybe we should either repeat the Brachiosaurus estimates or remove the sentence altogether. Pinging MWAK if he has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A solution might be to explain for each estimate which method was used. This would make the entire subchapter less repetitive and highlight the rôle the genus had historically played in the development of such methods.--MWAK (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MWAK, I will see what is possible shortly. Fixed the inconsistency "m" vs "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• "This lead to the trunk being inclined, with the front much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle."—Lead is on the periodic table. There's only one "and", so do we need the comma before it in a sentence that's not too long?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "These bony rods were attached to neck muscles at their ends, allowing these muscles to operate distal portions of the neck while themselves being located closer to the body, thus lightening the neck."—The neck is part of the body. Do you mean closer to the trunk? And does it make the neck lighter, or just lower its centre of gravity? Try to remove "thus" if it doesn't damage the meaning.

yes, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The ribcage was unusually deep."—What, for a dinosaur or for a subclass?

added "deep compared to other sauropods". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "the elongated forearm and metacarpus known from other brachiosaurids"—from ... moving away. Why not "... metacarpus of other ..."?

yes, changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• This ... this. It's repetition-sensitive. Second one "the"?

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "show" -> had? Since your model has mostly been to look at them metaphorically as if on a movie, rather than scientifically via fossils. There's another one, too.

replaced throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "given its more elongated dorsal vertebrae"—which of the two does "its" back-refer to?

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "the broadened neural spine" ... "a"? Since you haven't talked about this aspect before, unless I've overlooked it.

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Although Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus suggest identical proportions.[2][3]" So we get a year for Paul's suggestion, but no time-anchor for the update. And "suggest/ed" twice. "Paul had suggested the neck ..., more recent work points to ..."? Tony (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed suggestions! Will remember these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see something to improve in nearly every sentence, further down. I've listed suggestions for a section or two:

• "Large air sacs connected to the lung system were present in the neck and trunk, invading the vertebrae and ribs, greatly reducing the overall density." What do you mean by "invading"? Is it overall density of the lung system or the whole animal?

The latter. "Invading" is the term that most sources use. It was a gradual process during the life of the animal, in which the diverticula replaced bone tissue, penetrating the bone walls and slowly replacing bone tissue internally. Quite invasive.--MWAK (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is written for lesser experts than readers of academic journal articles, I'm presuming. Could some brief explanation such as you've given here be inserted in parentheses? I suppose we don't allow footnotes, do we? This is part of the service to our readers—to explain jargon where it can be done without much clutter. It is a balance in the end, but if I'm not understanding the meaning, it's a problem, I think. Tony (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I added "invasion by bone resorption", trying to keep it as brief as possible; do you think this would be enough to get the reader on the right track? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The neck would have been held in a slight S-curve, with bended lower and upper sections and a straight middle section." So ... "would have been" is an attempt to reduce the certainty level, right? Rather than simply "was". If you're reflecting the certainty level of the source, I guess that's ok.

Yes it is. The source uses "probably", but is contradicting some earlier works with this statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• "While the neck is not preserved in the holotype specimen, it was very long even for"—past or present?

"It is currently not known" and "the neck was long", we have to switch tenses here I think. Or do you mean the use of "while", which somehow indicates "during the same time"? Replaced it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The ribcage was deep compared to other sauropods"—was deeper than that of other ...? And past again ... you decide, but be consistent (where possible).

Hm, I don't see the problem with the current formulation yet, could you elaborate? "Was deeper than in other" would be a bit too much, the source only states that it was deep. When describing the animal, we usually use past tense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• The grammar is odd: "This resulted in an inclined trunk with the shoulder much higher than the hips and the neck exiting at a steep angle." Exiting is the problem. What exits? ", which both exit at"?

I see, a comma was missing: "This resulted in an inclined trunk with the shoulder much higher than the hips, and the neck exiting the trunk at a steep angle." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• overall overall.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, this vertebra"—do you need the additive connector?

no, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Paul, in 1988, suggested that the neck was shorter in Brachiosaurus than in Giraffatitan, although Taylor, in 2009, pointed out that two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus had identical proportions." Bumpety-bump
  "In 1988, Paul suggested that Brachiosaurus's neck was shorter Giraffatitan's; but in 2009, Taylor pointed out that two cervical vertebrae likely belonging to Brachiosaurus had identical proportions."
  Do watch your comparison grammar. Sometimes "that of" is necessary in precise scientific language. A must be cast as B in the grammar.

Reformulated, hope its better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nowadays we use a little more possessive apostrophe than last century, in English. "the arm of Brachiosaurus appears to have been ..." -> "Brachiosaurus's arm appears to have been ...". Not too much, but here it helps. And here it's much less clumsy:
  "This might indicate that the forelimbs of Brachiosaurus supported a greater fraction of the body weight than is the case for Giraffatitan.

Generally it might be true that the genitive has gained terrain. But we have to take the special case of Brachiosaurus into consideration. Perhaps "Brachiosaurus's" is, typographically, so clumsy in itself that it is best avoided completely in a written text? And a tongue-twister in spoken language...--MWAK (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Tony (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• A snake needs splitting up, and there are no other thises around. Good.
  "Although the vertebral column of the trunk or torso is incompletely known, the back of Brachiosaurus most likely comprised twelve dorsal vertebrae, as can be inferred from the complete dorsal vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937."
  "Although the vertebral column of the trunk or torso is incompletely known, Brachiosaurus's back most likely comprised twelve dorsal vertebrae; this can be inferred from the complete dorsal vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The centra (vertebral bodies), which form the lower part of the vertebrae, were more elongated" ->
  "The centra (vertebral bodies) that form the lower part of the vertebrae were more elongated"
  Native speakers sometimes mess it up too; but you need to get it right.

Ah, but it wasn't meant to be restrictive... "The centra (vertebral bodies), the lower parts of the vertebrae, were more elongated" might remove all ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Good! Tony (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Included MWAK's suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The upwards projecting neural spines, when seen in side view, stood vertically and were twice as wide at the base than at the top, while those of Giraffatitan were tilted backwards and were not broadened at their base." Bumpy. Grammar. Typography. Fluff. Explore better syntax.
  "In side view, the upward-projecting neural spines stood vertically and were twice as wide at the base than at the top; those of Giraffatitan tilted backward and did not broaden at their base."
  My editor makes me cut ALL the eses: "toward", "backward", etc. It's optional, though. You might also consider adopting the US "though" rather than "although". I now prefer it (personally). Do you spell out double-numeral numbers in your other work?

Took your wording, thanks! I also followed your suggestion with the "although" and eses, didn't know those are British English only. I personally would spell out numbers up to twelve, but only if they are not part of a comparison including higher numbers (e.g, "the humerus is 8 cm long in A, and 32 cm long in B"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you printing it out and marking changes with a pen? Try to read it differently, and apply some of the issues I've raised. Tony (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm keen to see this promoted. Tony (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort, Tony. I will try to copy edit the rest of the article, watching out for similar issues, but it might take a few days as I currently have limited time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Any more, Tony1? LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm afraid my Brachiosaurus budget is way overdrawn. I'm not opposing. Tony (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, a "Brachiosaurus budget" sounds like something that would be big, so fingers crossed that you'll return! FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought you'd been right through it to weed out redundant/complex wording. We need you to skill up on this. Your reviewing and editing input is valued. So it's disappointing to find so much to improve in another paragraph chosen at random:

• "Though no skull remains were discovered with the original Brachiosaurus skeleton, one partial skull from a different location, referred to as the Felch Quarry skull (specimen USNM 5730), may belong to Brachiosaurus." ->
  "Though no skull remains were discovered with the original Brachiosaurus skeleton, one partial skull from a different location may belong to Brachiosaurus: the Felch Quarry skull (specimen USNM 5730)."

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• "making it the largest sauropod skull known from the Morrison Formation"—Do you need "known"?

Not necessarily, there might be larger skulls in the ground we don't know of, but removed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• You never use interrupting dashes. Why not? It makes your job easier, and is a better read:
  "Overall, the skull was tall as in Giraffatitan, with a snout that was long (about 36% of the skull length) in front of the nasal bar between the nostrils, which is typical of brachiosaurids."
  
  "Overall, the skull was tall as in Giraffatitan, with a snout that was long (about 36% of the skull length) in front of the nasal bar between the nostrils – typical of brachiosaurids."

Can't say for the others, but I am not personally accustomed to this usage. Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• How can snout snout be avoided? Explore different grammars:
  "The snout was set at an angle relative to the rest of the skull, which gave the impression that the snout pointed downward." ->
  "The snout, set at an angle relative to the rest of the skull, gave the impression of pointing downward."

The second snout was unnecessary I see, I would just have said "it", but took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• "fused together" – do you need the second word?

Maybe for clarity, but removed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The skull differed from that of Giraffatitan in having a its U-shaped (instead of W-shaped) suture between the frontal and nasal bones, enhanced by the frontal bones extending forward over the orbits (eye sockets)." What was enhanced? And is that the right word? Tony (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Took your suggestion, as for "enhanced", it is the U-shape which was "enhanced", worded as such in the source. I have added "a shape enhanced", but I wonder if "made more pronounced" or "emphasized by" could be used too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ... "appears more pronounced"? Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "a shape which appears more pronounced by", or is "shape" redundant? I wonder if the reader would be certain of what is referred to otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further feedback, we'll get to it. It should be noted that three out of four of the nominators are not native Anglophones (including me), so perhaps another time a copy edit should have been requested first. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Several copy-edits, for such a long, technical article. Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lusotitan

Great to see this finally get here! I know everyone has put a lot of hard work into this article, and it's been a long time coming for such a well known and important genus to get to this level. I'll probably wait until Tony1 gets a bit further into the article to start my reviewing so I'm working on the most recent pass and we don't step on each other's toes.

It seems the review above has ended, Lusotitan (at least for now), if you want to continue the review. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I still plan to do a review, but it may be a few days because I'm busy with some important personal matters this weekend. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the delay, but I do have some things to input:

• I hate to say it, but the size section feels quite inadequate. Numbers are just thrown out in a list; I haven't read all the papers in question, but surely they explained the methods that led them to their estimates a bit? The estimates are differ by up to 30 metric tonnes and some discussion of what might be leading to these very different numbers would be very useful, to the best extent possible. It might end up a tad technical, but I'd say a general reader could at least glean a little bit of why the numbers are so uncertain. Also, noting the dates of the estimates in the text as opposed to just the citations might be worthwhile.

I earlier proposed something similar. I decided this was a good moment to expand the Giraffatitan article and I can rewrite its size section along these lines. This can then be used, mutatis mutandis, for this article also.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Related, but the Giraffatitan estimates given below are certainly relevant but the note of it being found as smaller as a rule would be better shown if you actually stated what that particular study found for Brachiosaurus in the same place in the section as the Giraffatitan ones (I'd personally go with parentheses right afterwards).

Seems a good suggestion.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lastly, for how big a deal Riggs made about it being the largest dinosaur ever, it seems odd there's no acknowledgement of this historical claim and when and how it was dethroned.

That can only be done if there's a good source for it to avoid a forbidden synthesis. Claims about sauropods "bigger than Brachiosaurus" were fashionable in the seventies and eighties but "Ultrasaurus" proved to be the same animal and Seismosaurus was not unequivocally larger.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunate, I do think it's a rather important aspect of the topic. If it can't easily be sourced it'll have to be left aside for now, perhaps we could revisit adding a bit on it in the future. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I at least added Taylor's claim that Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan were the two largest brachiosaurids known. Paul (1988) states that they were as large as sauropods used to get but that leaves the dethroning uncovered.--MWAK (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would link the first use of the word "trunk" to the torso page to avoid any possible confusion, in both the lead and "general build" sections. The meaning is established in the "postcranial skeleton" section, but the word has been used a half-dozen times before this.

Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The specimen numbers such "BMNH R5937" and "FMNH P 25107" should have the abbreviations link to their respective museums on first use per section.

Fixed, but I couldn't find anything for "SMA". LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• There doesn't happen to be any chance "spinodiapophyseal" or "spinopostzygapophyseal" have any precedent for containing a dash somewhere in them?

Probably someone has on occasion inserted a hyphen after spino~ but this is not a usual spelling so I would avoid it. If people know a bit of Latin and Greek the etymology can be figured out. If they don't, that hyphen won't be of much help either :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• What the Felch Quarry skull actually preserves is layed out clearly in the history section but doesn't seem to be in the skull section unless I'm missing it; it should be made clear which parts we actually have there as well.

Well, the parts described in the description section are those that are preserved. Usually, dry lists of preserved bones are kept in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems important to me that there can't be any confusion that we know stuff for certain about parts we don't actually have. As a general reader, am I going to think about the implication of the statement "partial skull" or am I going to glance at the picture of what's very obviously a complete skull (the reconstruction of one)? I'm going to see the skull and assume we dug that thing up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brachiosaurus is based on a partial postcranial skeleton discovered in 1900 in the valley of the Colorado River near Fruita, Colorado. - "based on" as the first way used to describe the holotype could be interpreted as it being all we have, could something more like "Brachiosaurus was first discovered through" be used?

"Based on" is used precisely because it is the holotype. That Felch skull was discovered earlier. But I agree it's ambiguous. Tentatively, I added "The genus...".--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Kimmeridgian is linked but I think it'd be a good idea to give a rough time-range after its first use in the history section too, especially since it's such an easy and brief addition.

A time range is desirable but a rough one, like "about 150 million years ago", is confusing. It suggests that the animal indeed lived 150 mya but there's no proof for that. I'll add the more precise dates.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• After a concluding ten-day prospecting trip, the expedition returned to Grand Junction and hired a team and wagon to transport all fossils to the railway station, during five days; another week was spent to pack them in thirty-eight crates with a weight of 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg). - don't we usually use kilograms and then pounds, at least within the WikiProject?

Perhaps this expresses better that the source uses pounds only.--MWAK (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The titles of Riggs' 1901 and 1903 articles emphasized that the specimen was the "largest known dinosaur". - the 1903 article is never established before this point (within the history section). Either it should be introduced beforehand or introduced within the sentence more properly so it doesn't sound like the reader should already know what it is. It actually is more properly introduced at the end of the paragraph, but this is backwards to how it should be treated.

Rewrote the paragraph along a strict chronological order.--MWAK (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The dry mesa scapulocoracoid is never referred to as such in the text. Additionally, Taylor's 2009 paper is cited but his notes that it differs from B. altithorax' are not. It's ambiguous whether or not he considers it referrable to Brachiosaurus generically [in his paper].

I'm not sure what specimen you are referring to now.--MWAK (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The subject of paragraph four in the "assigned specimens" section and the associated image. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. It was referred to Brachiosaurus altithorax by Paul (1988), to a Brachiosaurus sp. by Curtice (1996) and denied to have been B. altithorax by Taylor. I'll rewrite the paragraph to reflect this.--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• These include a humerus (specimen USNM 21903) from Potter Creek that is not clearly referable to Brachiosaurus despite its large size of 2.13 meters (7.0 ft). - note why it is not referable if possible.

The problem here is that Taylor does not provide any detail. He states "it is in some other respects different" but doesn't mention what these differences are exactly.--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I was worried that might be the case, hence the "if possible". You could change it to say "...not clearly referable to Brachiosaurus according to Taylor, despite..." but I'll leave it up to you. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Followed your suggestion.--MWAK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Shortly before the publication of the 2004 book - it wasn't established that the 2004 publication was a book. Ideally, it should be identified as The Dinosauria and linked as such.

Done.--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lusotitan is recovered outside of Brachiosauridae now and then, and this should be noted; right now the text treats its assignment to the family as definitive.

Nuanced. You might want to add a study recovering it as a non-brachiosaurid :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say here? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, we need not include all studies, so if there's a paper that you find specially relevant in this respect, the easiest way would be for you to cite it.--MWAK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Both the "B. brancai and B. fraasi" and the "B. atalaiensis" sections should have main article links. Also, should the binomial be abbreviated in a title? Not a rhetoric, I'm unsure but it seems like it'd be improper.

Not sure if tis is really a requirement, as long as the respective articles are linked in the text. But I'll add it if a guideline can be provided that states this should be done anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a guideline, but isn't it kind of the whole point of the template? Of course it's going to be linked in the text if it's being talked about with its own section, but the point of using a the "main" or "broader" template is have this indicated at the very top of the section. This is a brief coverage of the topic, there's a full article about it, is there any good reason not to use the template here? It's a textbook example. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll insert full species names in the chapter titles. These abbreviations are puerile anyway :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• There are some unordered references, but I can go fix that myself.

Yeah, I have never seen anyone actually point to a guideline that says this should be done, so it is up to whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a strict guideline, but to me it seems like a very obvious professionality thing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That's everything I have for the first two sections. I'll look at the rest once responses come through. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think MWAK knows the most about the relevant sections. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Lusotitan, finished. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we're about ready to wrap this up so if there are any last-minute comments, pls speak soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Still missing an image review, it has been requested for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I could probably give further feedback on the remaining sections, but seeing as I'm active in the dinosaurs WikiProject there's no reason that has to be here. There's definitely no chance I'd end up opposing in the end, so I'll throw in support and suggest pushing this through once the image review is done. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Just passing by to say I'd recommend not starting all three paras in the lead with "Brachiosaurus". Fantastic work to all those involved on improving this article, though! I'm kinda surprised it wasn't an FA yet, but it sure deserves to be. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I made some tweaks to the third paragraph of the intro. By the way, this is the last dinosaur appearing in Jurassic Park to be nominated for FAC, if it passes, they are all FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's great to hear! Looks like all the dinosaurs from the first three movies will be FAs then, with the exception of Spinosaurus and Corythosaurus, which are GAs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There are a few genera from the second film which are unlikely to go anywhere soon due to taxonomic instability too (Pachycephalosaurus, Mamenchisaurus, Pteranodon). FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Reading now.....

The proportions of Brachiosaurus were unlike most sauropods: the forelimbs were longer than the hindlimbs, which resulted in a steeply inclined trunk, and its tail was proportionally shorter than those of most other sauropods. - why not just, "Unlike most sauropods, Brachiosaurus had longer forelimbs than hindlimbs, which resulted in a steeply inclined trunk, and a proportionally shorter tail."

was very eager to add a large sauropod skeleton to the collection, to outdo other institutions - I'd not have a comma here.

Otherwise looking polished and on track for FA-hood Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Both now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hence support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by IJReid

Been busy with life and work but I'll get this done asap. I will bring some querries in a few minutes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Size section goes right out and introduces "Brachiosaurus brancai". I would recommend cutting that mention out, leaving just Giraffatitan, or otherwise restructuring so the reader understands the species relevance before getting to the size section.

Do you mean this sentence: "Most estimates of Brachiosaurus's size are based on the related African brachiosaurid Giraffatitan (formerly known as Brachiosaurus brancai)"? I'm not sure I understand the issue. Perhaps it should start out by also spelling out the binomial Brachiosaurus altithorax? FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess yeah. Establishing the multiple species at the beginning is basically out-of-context in my opinion, but adding in "altithorax" is good enough. Not gonna make me withhold support. I'll nail all my other points out imminently. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The length of 21m is mentioned and cited twice, maybe just double-cite the first one?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• "very similar in size to those of the Brachiosaurus type specimen, the former specimen was found to be somewhat lighter than the Brachiosaurus specimen given its proportional differences" repetition of "Brachiosaurus specimen" and "specimen"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• General Build - Paragraph 1 last sentence: perhaps note that diplodocoids were contemporaneous? Otherwise noting them specifically is unecessary

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Postcranial skeleton - Paragraph 1 Sentence 1: missing period, I think?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• " " Sentence 4: why mention "in cross-section" twice. I think its a given

removed last mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Holotype specimen - Paragraph 3 Sentence 2: I think you mean "confused" and not "confirmed"?

The real femur being just as long seemed to confirm that his identification of the humerus as a thighbone was correct. I'll rewrite the sentence to remove ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Neck Posture - Paragraph 2 Last Sentence: under what times/situations were the necks thought to move side-to-side? Locomotion? Habitual movement? Feeding?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion on nostrils is broken up into three places currently, its own section, the last paragraph of feeding, and the last paragraph of skull description. Perhaps rearrange these into either two groups, or one.

I can see what you mean, the first occurrence is mainly on morphology, whereas the later text is mainly about function. I have changed the title of the section accordingly, "nostril function", does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah certainly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's it, once these are done I will give my support. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems these have all been answered, IJReid. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Guys, with little outright support for promotion after almost a month, I'm afraid this is teetering on the brink. I'll give Lusotitan some time to do their promised review and we'll see what comes of that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that IJReid has also begun a review, so there are two ongoing reviews in addition to one support. So though this might be a bit drawn out, I don't think the situation would be any different during a potential second nomination. The main problem is that three regular FAC reviewers of animal articles are nominators of this FAC, which means the pool of interested reviewers is quite small for this nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth, and Dunkleosteus77, who are animal FAC regulars, if they are interested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgot that Dunkleosteus77 already GA reviewed this. Perhaps PaleoGeekSquared might want to take a stab at reviewing, it can give good insights for writing one's own articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That said, support as the guy who already reviewed this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

• I was so impressed by finding an error in the very first sentence (dinosaur should be plural) that I thought I had better read on!

Thanks for the review! Not sure about that being an error though, it is the same as saying "the hoatzin is a species of bird", if that is the part you are referring to. That is how pretty much all dinosaur FAs are written, as well as those of many other animals. I found a discussion of this issue here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are some scientific sources using the phrase "genus of dinosaur"[4][5], and one that uses both versions in the same abstract:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would follow "species of" with a singular and "genus of" with a plural. That seems right to me, and is what I use in the genus and species articles I write, but I am not going to make a big issue of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not something I feel strongly about, but I'll see if some of my co-nominators have any thoughts on this first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to keep the current wording, as in dinosaur paleontology, the genus (and not the species) is the unit one usually works with (and in this specific case, we only have a single species within this genus). I do not mind changing it though, but also would like to see other peoples opinions first as we would have to adjust almost all other dinosaur articles as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• " ... more recent research suggest it was warm-blooded." - Suggests

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The length of Brachiosaurus has been estimated at 20–21 meters (66–69 ft), 18 meters (59 ft), and its height at 9.4 meters (31 ft) and 12–13 meters (39–43 ft)." - In this and similar sentences, you need an "and" between the first two factoids instead of a comma.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 does likely not reflect " - I think "likely" should be before rather than after "does".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "even for sauropod standards" - should be "by".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "with bended lower and upper sections" - Suggest "with the lower and upper sections bent".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Brachiosaurus likely shared the very elongated neck ribs with Giraffatitan," - suggest "Brachiosaurus likely shared with Giraffatitan the very elongated neck ribs.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Its overall build resembles a giraffe" - You should not be using "It" here because Brachiosaurus was not the subject of the previous few sentences.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1988, Paul" - You need to state who Paul is the first time he is mentioned.
• ... and Taylor.

Fixed. both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "vertebral column preserved by an unnamed brachiosaurid" - "by" is probably not the best word here.

Changed to "in". FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Differences to Giraffatitan are related" - I think "differences from".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the "Skull" section, the conversion is to feet rather than inches as it was in "Postcranial skeleton" section. Feet might be better all round seeing that the image of femur and humerus has a foot rule scale.

Changed to inches. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "continuing thereafter as a shallow through" - I think you mean "trough".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "ended just before and below the fenestra" - Suggest "ended just in front of and below the fenestra"

Good idea, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "these animals were inaccurately" - Suggest incorrectly or erroneously.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• • More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• We have "In the spring of 1899" and later "Arriving on 20 June" and "on 4 July 1900". From the prose, these events seem to refer to the same year but the dates given seem to indicate a longer time span.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Additional discoveries of Brachiosaurus material in North America have been uncommon and consist of a handful of bones" - I object to the use of a "handful" in this casual fashion.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1998, Carpenter and Tidwell described the Felch Quarry skull, and formally assigned it to B. sp." - I assume that B. here refers to Brachiosaurus?

Yes, spelled out here to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "the latter renamed Ultrasauros shortly thereafter because another sauropod already received the name." - I think "had" is missing from this sentence.

Said "had already received". FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "therefore suggested to separate them not at genus, but only at subgenus level," - Suggest " therefore suggested they be separated not at genus, but only at subgenus level,"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Atalaia" - Needs disambiguation.

Seems we don't have an article for the exact place, so removed link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Cladistic analyses also allow to determine which new traits the members of a group have in common" - Missing word?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The idea of near-vertical postures in sauropods in general was popular for until 1999," - Extra word?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "The paleontologists Olivier Rieppel and Christopher Brochu .." is too long and complex.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Brachiosaurus, with its shorter arms" - This statement surprised me because I thought that Brachiosaurus had particularly long arms.

But Giraffatitan had even longer arms! Hence the name, it was even more giraffe-like... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "which would have helped smell proper vegeteation in a terrestrial setting" - ?

Removed "in a terrestrial setting", goes without say8ing, as we have already established it wasn't aquatic. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Instead the air was from the trachea sucked into an abdominal air sac" - Suggest "Instead the air was sucked from the trachea into an abdominal air sac"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "at the meantime" - suggest "same time"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Its dorsal vertebrae still completely lack such pleurocoels." - The subject of the previous sentence is the pleurocoels.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Its bone structure indicates that Brachiosaurus was able to reproduce when it reached 40% of its maximal size." - That's a bold claim, all from a handful of old bones!
  • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am happy with the responses and actions taken and now Support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

This is doable, and fun to read, but have quibbles, many of them re tense. Can ye substitute phrases like "would have" with "had" as much as possible.

• Following blue linked technical terms with a brief explanation in parenthesis is a very nice touch.
• No need to link Africa and Europe

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

maybe North America could also go. Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the past, three other species of Brachiosaurus have been named based on fossils found in Africa and Europe; two are now thought to be invalid - don't like "in the past", nor "invalid"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Invalid" is standard terminology for such taxa, would probably be best to say "not valid" or similar instead of "not legitimate", a term never used in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I cant parse this - "The large nasal arch has been as an adaptation for cooling the brain, as a surface for evaporative cooling of the blood". For one, the word adapted is missing.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lead "one of the largest known," is incomplete and inelegant. Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejigged, does it look better?

• Lead: ...sauropods. Unlike most sauropods - repetition

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Size

• In studies including estimates for both genera, Giraffatitan was estimated at - lots of redundancies here: Simpler is "Various studies have estimated Giraffatitan as within xyz range"
• (MB.R.2181[10]) - mostly you put the refs outside the brackets, which I think is better

Agree, moved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• the former was found to be somewhat lighter - using this as an example of word redundancy throughout; just "was somewhat lighter" is tighter and less taxing.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• As is the case with the Brachiosaurus main specimen - as with the main...

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 does likely not reflect the maximum size of the genus - likely does not

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

• Very long paragraphs here, and makes for fascinating but dense reading! Any chance you could break up at least the first two?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• an unnamed brachiosaurid specimen, BMNH R5937[19] Vertebrae of the front part of the dorsal column - is there some punctuation missing here

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Air sacs did not only invade the vertebrae - did not only? "not only"

Said "not only invaded", is that what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

General build

• Section header would be better as "build"

The following subsection deal with in various ways with "build" so "general" is a good clarification. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brachiosaurus was a quadrupedal animal with a small skull - Was a quadrupedal with a small

You mean "was a quadruped"? Changed to that, though could also be "was quadrupedal". FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "a quadruped". FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes better. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The neck would have been - "Its neck was"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brachiosaurus likely shared the very elongated neck ribs with Giraffatitan, which ran down the underside of the neck - they didn't share neck ribs. And the word "neck" is twice in once sentence leading to vagueness (neck ribs run down the underside of the neck - ORLY)

Feeding and diet

• if it ate during sixteen hours per day - if it fed for sixteen

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• biting off between a tenth and two-thirds of a kilogram, taking between one and six bites per minute - consuming rather than taking. Then "its daily food intake"

You don’t consume a bite   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and gaa. I misread as one and six kg. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• with its shorter arm and lower shoulder it only had one arm?

Hehe, changed to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The forward position of the center of mass would have led to problems with stability - "its" center of mass

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• relatively little from rearing (only 33% more feeding height)- why "relatively little" if we know c. 33%

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• The downward mobility of the neck of Brachiosaurus would have allowed it to - why say "would have"?, just "allowed it to". Maybe "the neck of Brachiosaurus" should be "a Brachiosaurus' neck"

These are really conditional statements. You mean to say: "If indeed the neck was as ventrally mobile as is usually assumed, this would have allowed Brachiosaurus to...". It would be very cumbersome to make this explicit every time (another conditional :o). To solve this problem, the conditionality is implied by the "would have" construction which is very common and immediately understandable by the reader. Natural language is full of such handy tools. You're not supposed to critically reflect on them :o).

The genitive construction has been discussed above. I don't think "Brachiosaurus ' neck is syntactically correct: in spoken language you would probably have to pronounce the second s to avoid Brachiosaurus being understood as an adjective (not that there would be much data on this). Also, in our code the series of three apostrophes without being directly followed by a letter is read as a boldface command. So you would have to write Brachiosaurus's neck, which is typographically cumbersome and not a happy pronunciation either. The formality of "the neck of Brachiosaurus" avoids these problems and perhaps well fits an encyclopedic text.--MWAK (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is very interesting MWAK, thanks for clear explanation. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record I'm leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, now Supporting. Great to see team work like this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

PaleoGeekSquared

Got your ping, FunkMonk. I don't usually do this but I'll give it a go, some mostly minor comments down below.

Thanks, it's probably a good place to start! FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Link to 1903 in paleontology in the lead as well.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why do the first mentions of Paul and Taylor use a last-name basis whilst the other paleontologists (such as in the History of discovery section) fully spell out their names before doing so? It seems inconsistent, they should at least be linked since most general readers won't be familiar with Mike Taylor or Gregory St. Paul.

I think because some text was removed, now their names are spelled out and linked at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• another week was spent to pack them in thirty-eight crates - Is there a reason why "38" is not used? I thought that was the format for all numbers above ten.

WP:Numbers allows both for numbers above nine and below a hundred.--MWAK (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, will keep in mind for the future. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Riggs described the coracoid as from the left side of the body - Are three citations really necessary for such a simple claim by one person?

The point is that he repeated the mistake in all three studies.--MWAK (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sandstone is linked in its second, not first mention.

Moved link. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• You mention Supersaurus/Ultrasauros in the fourth para of Assigned material and then including the new genera Supersaurus and Ultrasaurus after that, then back to Ultratsauros again. is this a typo or were Ultrasaurus and Ultrasauros named as separate genera?

Ultrasauros was a renaming of Ultrasaurus, as stated in the text.--MWAK (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, must've missed that! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Atalaia should be linked.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed again, we don't have an article for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• so this might have also been true for brachiosaurids as well - Remove "also" or "as well"

Removed as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Link "theropods" on first mention.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• though part of its lower end are lost to erosion - is lost to erosion?

▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Said "was lost". FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that should be it, PaleoGeekSquared. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't find anything else to comment on (then again this is only my first attempt at this) so Supporting now. Kudos to everyone who worked on this, looks like an exceptionally written article to me! Reading it even gave me some ideas for ways to improve my future FAC on Irritator, particularly the description section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a win-win then! You caught a good deal of stuff not noticed by anyone else. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Is ISBN 9781852837747 a reliable source?

A book on the making of Jurassic Park being cited for Brachiosaurus appearance in the movie. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is ISBN 9780792456063 a reliable source?

A non-childrens book written by expert. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is ISBN 978-0-380-75896-8 a reliable source?

The David Lambert Book … not an optimal one, yes, and part of an old bit of information that was present in the article before we started working on it. I replaced it using better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is https://svpow.com/2009/11/18/ct-scanning-the-archbishop/ a reliable source?

It is written by palaeontologists, and the info contained isn't exactly controversial, but I wonder if a better source can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The source should be fine, but replaced it anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is "Brachiosaurus". Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. McFarland & Company. a reliable source?

According to Amazon "...this is a dense and rigorously scientific tome meant for only the most dedicated dinosaur lover. Part 1 contains an excellent background history of scientific findings..." and "Written by well-known paleontologists and organized alphabetically by subject, the signed articles cover kinds of dinosaurs, biology, geology, research, and museums where dinosaurs are on display, including a worldwide list of museums and sites". LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I take that http://www.thermopwy.net/bhbf/riggs.html is also a reliable source.

A copy of text written by the guy who described the genus. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is basically just the text from a journal article, which would otherwise not be accessible. The citation is to the journal article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No spotchecks done. Everything else seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like we are all set source wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

I didn't do this previously because the number of images here is scary, but being the author of Parinacota (volcano) I shouldn't really complain, so...

Thanks, well, at least images of dinosaurs and volcanoes are easier to the eye than biographies of long dead people full of black and white headshots... FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Brachiosaurus mount.jpg: I don't like saying this, but which CC-BY license did they license this under? There is more than one; are we assuming that they are referring to the most recent one?

You can see they specify at the bottom of the text, and also give a link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Brachiosaurus femur and humerus.jpg and File:Felch Quarry Brachiosaurus.jpg: Might want to link to the "About" page so that people can check the license.

Already linked in the second one, but not needed in the first one, because the blog isn't the original creator (so PD US is what matters). FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Altithorax.jpg: I take we are sure this image was published shortly after it was created? Some images are published shortly after creation, others aren', and since the copyright expiry clock starts ticking at the expiration date we need to be sure on this.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure it must have been published in some science magazine or journal back in the day (the first version I uploaded looked pretty wretched), have you come across it in an old source, MWAK or Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not in Matthew's Dinosauria. The earliest publication I know of is Brinkman (2010). That would mean the picture is free from copyright 120 years after its creation in 1899, thus in 2019.

I wonder if it might be in the following article, if anyone has access to it: Brinkman, Paul D. 2000. “Establishing vertebrate paleontology at Chicago’s Field Columbian Museum, 1893-1898.” Archives of Natural History 27(1): 81-114. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Brachiosaurus nougaredi Sacrum.png: Do we have information on the original image (since this image is "based off" another one)? Especially since the (first) uploader apparently has a history on Commons of making undeclared derivative works.

The original is a photo in a journal article, so I guess the artist has just filled in the known parts with colour in a drawing he made. IJReid can maybe confirm, he said he followed its creation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The original images are not taken from any orthogonal angles, so the sacrum is approximates based on the known measurements and proportions, with specifics taken from approximating perspective distortion. Short story theres nothing like this, even the photos its based on. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if we really need it anyway, as it does not add much and is not of the highest quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:FMNH Brachiosaurus.JPG and File:Brachiosaurus altithorax.jpg: I remember seeing a discussion in the past about the copyright of such reconstructed skeletons ... what was the conclusion back then about their status?

Well, since the known bones are casts and the unknown parts are based on those of related animals, there isn't anything copyrightable in them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Morrison Formation Brachiosauridae map.png: I can't find the copyright license.

Weirdly, it only seems to be visible in the PDF version, so I have linked to that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• File:Annual report for the year ended June 30 (1959) (18404256836).jpg: What kind of steps were taken to verify that the copyright was not renewed?

This usually does the job:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Other than these, it looks like each image is pertinent. ALT text would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Note I just added this new usermade image from Commons to the article:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worth noting about that image, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.