Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cetiosauriscus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2018 [1].

Cetiosauriscus

[edit]
Nominator(s): IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dinosaur is relatively obscure among non-specialists, which seems to be my forté, but does have a significant number of publications about it due to its extended and complicated history. One of, if not the, most complete dinosaur from England, this would become the first Featured Article of a more basal sauropod, and the second for a British dinosaur, following Baryonyx from earlier this year. I believe this article, which should now be stable after a recent overhaul, is as comprehensive as it can be while remaining focused on the topic at hand. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
Thanks for taking this up, I expect it will be a slower FA review because of its low relevance
  • You could mention current genus affiliations in the captions of images that show formerly assigned species. Otherwise it is a bit misleading.
I think it should be good now
  • The image layout under classification seems a bit messy. The Mamenchisaurus photo creates white space on the left side of the cladogram. Also, I'm not sure if the wretched image of the hips add anything to that section (what's the poinjt when you don't even show the hips of Cetiosauriscus itself for comparison?), maybe just move the Mamenchisaurus photo to that spot and prevent some clutter.
Rearranged
  • I think maybe the life restoration could be moved to the top of the classification section, it seems a bit "hidden" out of the way in its current position. Then the Mamenchisaurus image could be moved to its current spot.
Rearranged
  • "Cetiosauriscus was a generic herbivorous sauropod" This seems like an overstatement, which source says it is "generic", and how do you define "generic" here? How can we even know if such a fragmentary animal was just "generic? Also, it is only stated it was herbivorous in the intro.
Paul's description of "cetiosaurs" was "generalized sauropods", removed from lead and put into description instead.
  • I wonder if all of the points brought up during Jens Lallensack's GA review have been implemented since? At least I can see his last two suggested sources aren't in the current article.
I tried to do the ones I thought were reasonable. Checking the newer Glut supplements he doesn't actually discuss C. stewarti at all, only C. greppini, and Schwartz, which I couldn't re-find, is also on C. greppini so I replaced all citations of the conference abstract with a later published paper with equivalent information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the original Glut (1997) and there was some information on Cetioauriscus. However, plenty of it was incorrect (most likely accidentally using the wrong specimen numbers), so I went to the primary source for the only currently unincluded content, Romers synonymy with Cetiosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first sentence of the history section should state the location before formation and age. I guess that's what most readers would want to know first in the discovery section. Many of the details, like the zone etc., are more relevant under palaeoecology, and could be moved there.
Changed and moved
  • The description of to the infobox pghoto says: "Note the similarity of this photograph to the drawing of the skeleton in Woodward (1905)" Perhaps add this diagram to the article? There is white space room under classification, for example.
  • You don't present the people mentioned under discovery, could at least give their occupations.
Done
  • Words like manus, caudal, chevrons, incertae sedis, could be glossed. Many others too.
Sadly I cannot link to the dino glossary until its out of jens' sandbox, I tried earlier and was reverted because you cannot link from an article to a sandbox
Oh, I just mean explain in brackets here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright I'll get on that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Still some needed, like incertae sedis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A whiplash tail" That is a pretty strange term to use out of nowhere. Tail tip?
Changed
  • "but a different individual" But belonging to.
Added
  • "thought by Alan Charig" When and why?
Added
  • "This assignment has not been accepted in alternate studies by Huene, Paul Upchurch and Darren Naish" When? And spell out Huene's name. How could Huene nopt "accept" a conclusion made after he had died?
Huenes full name (removed full name from later mention). Huene in 1927 IIRC rejected the referral of the tail to (then) Cetiosauriscus leedsi. Wording changed to make this easier to understand
  • "(BMNH, now abbreviated as NHMUK)", "(now named the Natural History Museum and abbreviated as NHMUK)". I think this could be consolidated somehow, otherwise repetitive.
Removed second mention, kept first as is
  • "was put up" Seems an odd way to put it. Constructed? Erected?
Changed to "was put on display"
  • There is some overlinking, try this script to highlight them:[2]
Done all that aren't duplicated between the lead and text, not sure if theres a policy but from what I remember links are allowed to be repeated between lead and text. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BMNH R3078 was referred in 1905 by Arthur Smith Woodward to the species he newly recombined as Cetiosaurus leedsi" This sentence seems too convoluted, and would be hard to understand for most readers. I don't think "newly combined" adds much, just give a date.
Removed
  • "John Arthur Phillips (1871)" you mostly state years in a sentence, not in brackets, better to be consistent.
Changed
  • After you mention a full name, you don't need to sell it out afterwards, as you do with for example Charig.
Done except for Henry Woodward, because theres also Arthur Woodward who is mentioned later and a bit of name confusion is possible
  • "cetiosaur". I think stating this in the description only adds more confusion, it isn't a descriptive term. Better to keep it under classification.
Removed
  • "As a cetiosaur it would have had a head with a shorter and rounded snout" Isn't this just a GSP hand wave statement, though? I don't think you cna state any of this as faqct, especially since the classifcation section indicates its classification is in flux. Same with the "generalized" part.
Removed most points, tail and arm length are known in Cetiosauriscus so I left them
  • "To the genus he referred the specimens NHMUK R1984–R1988 and NHMUK R3078" Weren't they still BMNH at the time? I think either you should stick to one abbreviation, or use them in a way that makes chronological sense.
Changed all to NHMUK except the first mention of NHMUK R3078.
  • Not sure if the long descriptions of dubious species should perhaps be moved to the description or classification sections instead? The descriptions seem way too detailed in any case (especially for describing features that ar enot even diagnostic), could be simplified to only state how they differ from the type species.
Simplified
  • In any case, since there is only one definite species, it would probably be better to have a section only for formerly assigned species, and keep the history of the one valid species in the "Discovery and naming", otherwise you give the impression that they are all equally valid.
Theres a major issue here because of how the type, and valid, species was once a dubious species. I can't move the info of C. stewarti without also moving the C. leedsi information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mix UK and US spelling, ise and ize, should stick to UK.
Done
  • Still a lot of people needing presentations. Greg Paul also needs full name and link.
Done?
  • "the whiplash tail NHMUK R1967" Could also be changed to tail tip or similar.
Done
  • "Huene based his new name off" Based on?
Done
  • "whale lizard like" Needing hyphen?
Done
  • "reassigned the species "Ornithopsis" greppini... into the genus Cetiosauriscus." To.
Done
  • You should also state where the assigned species were found. Now you only mention their formations for all, cities for some, and countries for others.
added
  • "by sauropod paleontologist John Stanton McIntosh" When? Generally give dates for all revisions.
Done
  • "Material named for the species" This makes no sense. Assigned to the species? Material the species is based on?
Done
  • "As it lacks any diagnostic features of Cetiosauriscus, Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" I don't think most readers would get this. You should explain that it defaults to its original name.
Done
  • ""Cetiosaurus" glymptonensis is considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis" By who and when?
Done
  • "C. greppini is now considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis." By who?
Done
  • "Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" Concluded by who?
Explained
  • " and close relatives like" If we don't know that these are actually close relatives or not, you need to say "possibly close relatives".
Done
  • " being the name for the specimen Huene had originally named the taxon for" You need to specify that "taxon" here is the genus, just to be clear.
Done
  • "London Brick Company hat owned" That, I assume.
Fixed
  • "Ecology" Why not palaeoecology, as in all other dinosaur FAs?
Its already in the "Paleobiology" section, extra redundancy isn't needed
But these are two separate terms. Whether you place the section within or outside the palaeobiology section, it is still paleoecology rather than just ecology. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be more useful to show the pelvis than the forelimb bones at the beginning of the species section, since it was presumably the only overlapping element between the species and is discussed in the adjacent text. So you could maybe swap the position of the photo at the end and the diagram at the top? Also looks nice for the beginning of the article.
Done
  • Why was NHMUK R3078 referred to C. leedsi in the first place?
Added
  • "The possibly referrable series of distal caudal vertebrae" Specify that they were referred to Cetiosauriscus.
Done
  • "Distal caudal of ?Cetiosauriscus" Is this one of the pathological caudals? if so, could be stated.
No its not
  • "It has been found only in" Since only one specimen is known, that should go without saying. So you could instead say "the single known specimen is from" or such.
Done
  • Perhaps do a section break before "Hundreds of invertebrates" under ecology, as the paragraph is very long, and it will fill up some of the white space some of us see between the last paragraph and the references.
Done, but left the {{clear}}
  • Anything on the environment, flora, and climate? Anything on the geology (what kinds of sediments it is from, etc.)?
Added
  • "and the flying pterosaur" Flying should be redundant.
Removed
  • Any of the see also links that could be used as sources in the article? otherwise, why are they needed?
I'm leaving them for now because they aren't really relevant for any new information, would simply duplicate content. But they also contain information on Cetiosauriscus and other taxa that could be considered mildly relevant.
I'm not sure if this complies with Wikipedia:Further reading, seems you could prune a lot of it out. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the skeleton isn't mounted anymore, so how is it stored now? The photo indicates it has been disassembled, could be an interesting detail to add.
Looking at the Dinosaur of the British Isles book I've seen, the skeleton is still mounted. But I'm not sure and no references I have can verify this. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why we need a long list of supposedly diagnostic features of an invalid family (cardiodotnidae) under classification? All we need to know here is that they were grouped together because one author seemingly saw some very general similarities.
Its about as necessary as for the other character lists, gives a general knowledge of the groups features and changes in discrete-ness over time
But it seems misleading to group this with much later observations by modern scientists. You at least have to state that none of these features are considered relevant today, if that can even be sourced. If not, it will only seem misleading, like it is an equally plausible alternative to the much later hypotheses. Best would be to shorten it and say something like "some of the features used by X in Y to group the cetiosauridae were for example xxx, but today these features are not considered diagnostic." FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a disclaimer
  • "In 2004 this placement was followed without comment." Meaningless if you don't state by who.
Added
  • "based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[24]) and Upchurch (1995[25])" Not sure why we need this detail. What does it say about the subject of the article?
Added relevance
  • "using equal weighting, following implied weights instead found it as non-neosauropod" Explain in text what any of this means, if it even needs to be here. You could just simplify to say they used to methods of analysis.
Simplified
  • "The results of the pruned implied weights" Again, do we need all this detail?
Simplified. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strong anterior articular ball (opisthocoelous)" this makes it seem like the ball is what opisthocoelous refers to, you should say something like "an opisthocoelous condition".
Added
  • "On the lateral surfaces" Gloss as "side" or similar.
Added
  • Link air sacs, laminae, etc.
Lamina is already, addes for air sacs
  • "here is no ventral" Likewise, if you are going to use anatomical terms, explain them at first mention.
Done
  • Explain sacrum, transverse processes, hyposphene, scapula, foramen , coracoid, centrum, etc.. In general, a lot of anatomical technical terms are not linked or explained here, you could look throughout for these.
Gone through the whole description
  • "Four sacrum neural spines" Should be sacral.
Reworded
  • "Next preserved" Next what preserved?
Removed
  • "Woodward (1905[6])" Elsewhere you say "in date".
Removed
  • "The shape of the humerus is similar to the shortness of Titanosaurus" For this you are quoting a paper form 1923, I very much doubt the Titanosaurus mentioned here is what it is today. Perhaps there are other such issues in the description, I fear some of it might be outdated.
Neuquensaurus apparently
  • "and the later Titanosauridae" Again, what does this actually refer to?
Added quotes, the family is still valid just unsure content
  • "with serial position" Simplify/explain jargon.
Removed
  • making them as long as hindlimbs." As its?
Added
  • marine ichthyosaurs" Redundant?
Removed
  • "being similar proportions to" Similar in.
Added
  • "was considered the fourth caudal in serial position by Woodward (1905[6])" Is this in line with current thinking?
Removed entire sentence
  • Nothing about its lifestyle, just something general true for its group?
I could add some generic arm-waving from Paul? It would be the simplest and easiest source to get the general information from. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be problematic if it is about "cetiosaurs". Maybe its current classification is too broad to say anything specific. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only see a couple of unanswered points above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point, the intro should probably mention that other species have historically been assigned to the genus as well. And no other FAs say "extinct dinosaur", should be redundant in the context.
All querries should now be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks as good as it can be to me now, would be good with a layman review too to see if it is comprehensible enough. I have a final question, you say the two editions of Paul's book give different weight estimates based on classification, do they also give different length estimates? FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope both say 15m ... IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good deal of text reshuffling was done since my review, so I have some further comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1980, Charig described a new specimen from the Early Cretaceous of England" Which specimen is that, has it been mentioned earlier in the text? Is it still assigned to Cetiosauriscus? What's its specimen number?
  • The last image under Further species is horizontal, so does it need the upright parameter?
  • You should link the other taxa mentioned in the image captions.
All the above have been done. The text has certainly changed much, for the better I think. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hope it's not too late for a layman review! But sure you mean intermediate and not indeterminate diplodocid? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Ah yeah added the references, not any paper but the mount photographs and drawing. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link a bit and added a brief explanation. I'm hoping the dinosaur glossary can be put into use soon it will be helpful. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I'm reading through the Description section and I'm very lost. Why is cetiosaur in quotes? If you're referring to Cetiosauridae, shouldn't it be cetiosaurid? When you say the snout was snorter, was that a typo? Why are pluerocoels important and what do they do? I'm reading this like a very complicated scientific report with many words that don't mean anything to me than a read in the English language   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the use of cetiosaur in quotes, its informal
Snorter was a typo
I explained what pleurocoels are but their physiological importance is never discussed in the context of Cetiosauriscus
I can try and go through the description but as far as dinosaur articles go it is rather tame so I don't think I will end up changing much. If there are specific terms that need explanation I can add that in. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried commas. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
Removed
Can't link yet but reworded to make more sense
Linked
Fixed
Fixed
I'm pretty sure it is
Fixed now
Reworded
Added brief explanation, he needs an article
Done
Changed
Linked
Done
Done I think
Fixes
Done I think
Fixed
Fixed earlier mention of a different name (zygosphene)
Yes, reworded
Done in that case
Done
done
done
done
Fixed
Done
I will remove some duplicate links in a subsequent edit, just making sure I have everything linked before I remove them. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All above changes should be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
I reworded, its been found to be both mamenchisaur and non-mamenchisaur but closer to mamenchisaurs than a diplodocid
I don’t understand. You’re saying it’s closer to, but not a part of, the family Memenchisauridae than to Diplodocidae?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
Metriacanthosaurus is of unknown provenance, might be from the same age as Cetiosauriscus, and the other two are the only large predators so I think general readers would find it relevant
Added
Removed
Done
Just keeping it how it was written in the published paper, back in those days species were capitalized
The two editions share nothing but the general organization and title, they are drastically different in every way.
I'm gonna keep the reference as its published title is. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I google it, it reads "Studies in paleopathology; general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the link in the reference itself, page 15 shows it exactly as it is written here, and page 374 does not have the initial period, but is also formatted differently "Studies in paleopathology[line break]I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". I'm inclined to follow the ToC format with the additional period to represent the line break, but if you wish I can remove the first period making it "Studies in paleopathology I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brief relevance explanation
Linked Humerus, caudals are linked earlier
No I mean all complex terms in all captions regardless of location (so wikilink also radius and ulna, etc.)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unecessary description but added more in about implications. There is no more information about Cetiosauriscus specifically besides what is there.
Doesn't happen for me possibly browser size difference. Added anyways
Yes. I think thats a more generic term so wouldn't need linking.
Added in and modified reference
Added link to relevant article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added explanation
Linked, the explanation should be sufficient (two convex ends). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the description seems to me to be unimportant, like with, "only noticeable laminae present are the spinopostzygapophyseal laminae running down the rear corners of the spine to the postzygapophyses," how many types of vertebral laminae are there? If there're multiple, is the difference so important? How is a, "tall and narrow hyposphene," not trivial? Why's, "a robust crest for the deltoid muscle along the upper half of the bone," significant? Isn't the crest supposed to be there? Why is, "...but the two sides [of the ilium] supplement each other to give a reasonable idea of the shape of the complete bone," here but not the shape of the bone? The fact that the two sides compliment each other should be implied if you give the shape of the ilium and say it's fragmentary. Is, "...making comparisons difficult," necessary if you can just not compare them?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to mention NHMUK R1984 and NHMUK R3078 in the Vertebrae section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoprezygs are important because most diplodocoids have *many* more laminae. Hyposphene is important because it is an extra articular surface. Deltoid crest is important because its the attachment for the deltoid muscle. Comparison with C. leedsi is important. I've basically added all the relevance of the above information into the article now, because none of it is insignificant enough to remove. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77, did you want to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is “vertebrae between the pelves“ a typo? Is it really necessary to say Woodward felt “ ‘great pleasure’ “?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pelves is the plural of pelvis, and I can't really reword the quote unless it gives some undue weight and questionable NPOV by changing out the "great pleasure" to a synonym. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hemiauchenia

[edit]

"Cetiosauriscus had a—for sauropod standards—moderately long neck and tail, a rounded skull, and forelimbs as long as hindlimbs" Not sure what this section adds to the article to be honest and also I am not aware that any skull material has been found for Cetiosauriscus so I'm not sure why that's mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the grammar and removed the skull mention. It's mildly relevant and about as generalist a way as you can describe the anatomy. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately long seems meaningless, if we don't even know if it was a mamenchisaur or "cetiosaur"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the neck mention, the tail length is pretty much certain unless it had the diplodocid whip, so I left that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Few general comments first.

  • I think the article would be more easy to read with a bit of additional background information. For example, I would include a sentence introducing Alfred Leeds, as he seems to have been quite central.
Added a blurb
But it is not well integrated, not sure if it is ideal to start the paragraph (and main article) with a side note. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would add something introducing Cetiosaurus. If possible, I would try to introduce as much as possible, otherwise the reader gets bombarded by names but cannot make much sense of them.
Added a blurb and reordered
  • In 1980, Charig re-examined the holotype of Cetiosauriscus leedsii while describing a new specimen from the Early Cretaceous of England. In this he confirmed that the ilium of the species, NHMUK R1988 – I am confused. Why is R1988 a new specimen, when it was already described by Huene (as stated earlier)? I'm also wondering how many specimens of C. stewarti there are, I didn't get that; certainly something to clarify, and to add to the lead as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • After excavation, the sauropod specimen was collected and taken by farmer Alfred Nicholson Leeds to Eyebury – I would remove the "was collected", as it means quite the same as "excavated".
Removed
  • The mount of Cetiosauriscus was put on display just prior to the cast skeleton of Diplodocus – If you mention the Diplodocus cast, you should also introduce it to explain its relevance.
Added
  • and was displayed with the dorsal vertebrae NHMUK R1984 and some isolated teeth from a camarasaurid.[4] – And what is the relevance of the teeth? Are they from the same quarry? Martill 1988 ("A review of the terrestrial vertebrate fossils of the Oxford Clay (Callovian-Oxfordian) of England") mentions some teeth which were thought to possibly belong to the Cetiosauriscus specimen, maybe it is worth to elaborate on them.
Martill 1991 mentions them, but there's no specimen in either publication so I'm not sure if adding the disclaimer in the first part of the lead is OR or not. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This species was originally named Ornithopsis leedsii in 1887 by John Hulke for a pelvis, vertebrae and ribs collected by Leeds which showed similarities to Cetiosaurus. – similarities to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis?
Yes and added
  • The first paragraph in the Species section is confusing. For example, you state that suggesting that the Wealden Group material belonged to Ornithopsis and the Jurassic remains to Cetiosaurus, but it was not mentioned before that Ornithopsis comes from the Wealden.
Reworded
  • Maybe it is better to have the Species section in strict chronological order to improve readability.
I have it chronologically with regards to when things are referred to Cetiosauriscus
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker disagreed with Seeley – when? For each study, the year is given, but not here. It makes it very difficult to understand since the stuff is not in chronological order.
No date stated but added to the sentence
  • Cetiosauriscus greppini differs from Cetiosauriscus stewarti by having – again confusing, as C. stewarti was not introduced in the article yet (apart from the lead), and it implies that this is a different species than Cetiosauriscus leedsii, which was used in the preceding sentences. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed
Jens Lallensack All comments are now done I believe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1898 a sauropod fossil was discovered in the area around – but who discovered it? One would guess it was Leeds itself as the previous sentence was about him …
Added "clay workers"
  • collected numerous collections – not ideal wording
Changed words
  • These pits are part of the Oxford Clay Formation – somehow repetitive now.
Merged with first sentence
  • (possibly referred to Cetiosauriscus[11]) – referable?
Fixed
  • Cetiosaurus is one of the first sauropods to be named – as with Leeds; I think the reader will have difficulties following if paragraphs start with information that do not seem connected to the topic at first sight. I would suggest something like "The name Cetiosauriscus was historically closely associated with the older name Cetiosaurus, one of the first sauropods to be named …". Something like this would improve the common thread.
Added note of "all English sauropod" referral
I can't really in this case because C. oxoniensis wasn't named in 1842 so isn't the topic of the sentence
  • where it was noted Ornithopsis hulkei, Cetiosaurus oxoniensis and Ornithopsis leedsii were all likely in the same genus, Ornithopsis having priority. – not sure why Ornithopsis had priority, wasn't Cetiosaurus named first?
Not sure changed, think it might say ornithopsis in the source
  • and the Jurassic remains (including O. leedsii) to Cetiosaurus. – confusing not to mention "O. oxoniensis" here, as it does not become very clear that C. leedsii is not the only Cetiosaurus species.
Added
  • was referred in 1905 by palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward to the species Cetiosaurus leedsi – somehow confusing, as the previous sentence was talking about Pelorosaurus leedsi. So that referral to Pelorosaurus was not accepted? Should be mentioned then.
Added
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker discussed with Seeley, before the publication of Seeley's 1889 paper, that Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis were the same taxon. – I thought I did not consider them the same taxon. Maybe shorten and merge with the following sentence for clarity?
Forgot to write "not"
  • as it was from the same geologic formation and location as other specimens of that taxon – I would remove "location", not sure what is meant (I guess it does not mean "from the same clay pit").
Removed
  • Sometimes the genus name is abbreviated, sometimes not; I would do it consequently after first mention or (maybe better) write them out always.
Done
  • All in all, I still have my problems with the first three paragraphs, and especially the third; as they are very difficult to read and to follow, I would suggest a careful copy edit here. Rest seems ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the best way to fix this? The first paragraph is ordered chronologically now, second is inbetween first and third in state, and the third was heavily cut from suggestions above to remove any anatomical details. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made an attempt to better integrate the sentence about Leeds, but please revert if you don't like it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, the first paragraph of the species section needs to be reorganized in my opinion. Most of it does not directly relate to the Cetiosauriscus specimen. It starts with taxonomic complications without giving the reader a hint how all of this relates to Cetiosauriscus until the very end. I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but I can offer an idea: You could move the "pre-history" (the taxonomic history before the description of the Cetiosauriscus skeleton) to a background paragraph giving an overview about the early sauropod discoveries in England, focussing on Cetiosaurus and Cetiosauriscus. This would be the first paragraph of the "Discovery and naming" section, making the whole thing following chronology. In the species section, you can then contunue with "NHMUK R3078 was referred in 1905 by palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward to the species C. leedsii", directly continuing with the story outlined in the previous two paragraphs.
  • I'm also not sure why the fist paragraph of the "species" section is inside this section? Its not really about Cetiosauriscus species. If you move the majority of it into a background section, as suggested above, you could attach the remainder to a new subsection "Discovery and naming", resolving this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the above changes an attempt. By adding a Cetiosaurus blurb I've also been able to introduce C. longus and C. glymptonensis earlier and more chronologically. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I think more subheadings in the discovery section would really be helpful. I was asked to do the same during the Ceratosaurus nomination was was skeptical at first, but it really made a difference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: 1) Historical background; 2) Discovery and naming of Cetiosauriscus; 3) Additional species? Anyways it should be close now, I will have another read through the section soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Background (to reduce repetition of "Histor-" in two adjacent headings, Discovery and naming, and Further species. I also separated the background content on Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis intwo two separate paragraphs, and moved the paragraph about the referral of NHMUK R3078 to leedsi into the "Discovery and naming" section. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your help on this was greatly appreciated. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]
A phylogenetic analysis of Cetiosauriscus conducted in 2003 by Julia Heathcote and Upchurch, based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[28]) and Upchurch (1995[29]), neither of which had included the taxon in the past. - surely this should be, "A phylogenetic analysis of Cetiosauriscus was conducted in 2003 by Julia Heathcote and Upchurch, based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[28]) and Upchurch (1995[29]), neither of which had included the taxon in the past."
Think I got it :) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I will be promoting this shortly. Just a few little points that don't need to hold up promotion but I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them. Sarastro (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Osteology of the reptiles" book ISBN is for a book published in 1997. I think there is a way in the template to give a year of first publication and then any reprint year.
  • The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN is fixed and all duplicate links that aren't duplication between the lead and content (the tool notoriously doesn't account for that) have been removed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No source or image review needed? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Sarastro1. I know we are not supposed to comment on closed FACs, but this one seems to have been closed prematurely. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops!! This is what comes of having multiple windows open. I've reopened it, and will fix the mess I made! Thanks FunkMonk Sarastro (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened this now. To clarify, we still need source and image reviews which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do the image review, but since 5 of the images were uploaded by me, I feel I might not be "neutral" enough... FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are reliable
  • There is a mix of sentence case and title case for journal article titles.
Case should be done for all journal articles. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting otherwise consistent
  • FN 3 cited once, material faithful to source
  • FN 22 cited once, material faithful to source
  • FN 23 cited three time, material largely faithful to source. Calculations/assumptions used to derive length not in source though...?
I assume here you meant the "based on", reworded it. I'll get on the title case IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later, gotta run. Largely ok, one query...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Given the sheer number, I shall only comment on these images which seem to have problems:

  • File:Cetiosauriscus composite.jpg: Not really an issue here since enWikipedia cares only about US copyright, but how did we ascertain that the image was anonymously published?
The way it is worded in Noe et al 2010 suggests that the composite image (which is shown in Martill 2008 like mentioned) was also shown in an anonymous publication earlier. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cetiosaurus fossils.jpg: I take that after the image was uploaded here, the Flickr user has changed its license? Because the current Flickr license is noncommercial and we don't allow these.
Yes, I uploaded this image, found through a search specifically for free licences. As you can see on the file page, the upload bot confirmed that it had the given licence as the time. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link under permission. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text on all images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't butcher the alt text too badly, I'm not really the greatest at it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment (2nd attempt): Right, I'm going to try again! All we were waiting for was the image and source reviews and we seem to be clear on those. I'm assuming that Dunkleosteus77 has no major concerns that would prevent promotion, and I think it's time to wrap this one up as it's had some fairly heavyweight review. Any other issues can be taken up on the article talk page. FunkMonk, if I've messed it up this time, I'm never touching another dinosaur article in my life! Sarastro (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cetiosauriscus/archive1&oldid=858688006"