Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gallimimus/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2018 [1].

Gallimimus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dinosaur was made famous by appearing in the movie Jurassic Park (like Dilophosaurus which was promoted recently), and is therefore the most popular article about an "ostrich dinosaur". As Gallimimus is a rather typical member of the group, I think this article can therefore serve as a good introduction to this kind of dinosaur, and I believe it is as comprehensive it can be. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley

[edit]
  • You should probably say "the new genus and its species" instead of "the new genus and species" in "a large skeleton discovered in this region was made the holotype specimen of the new genus and species Gallimimus bullatus in 1972".
Not sure why, though? "Its" kind of goes without saying. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "fleet animal" mean? Does it mean that they are fast? It isn't the most clear from the lead; maybe say "which uses its speed to escape predators" if that is the case.
I see this is defined later in the article; I still think it would be good to clarify this in the lead. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the same explanation, is that ok? FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the description section, you use millimeters and meters inconsistently; you say, for example, .79 meters, but at other times, you say, for example, 660 millimeters. Maybe just use meters? Similarly, you use feet (like "1.08 feet") in some places, but in others, use feet and inches. This seems to be related to the usage of millimeters.
The source uses both meters and milimeters, can't say why, but I feel it migh tbe best to stick to what the source does. I have changed conversions of all larger measurements to feet only, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the more commonly known bones and such in the description section (like the humerus or the femur), are described in parentheses, whereas less commonly known structures, like the coracoid, are not usually described. Could this possibly be fixed?
That is mainly because some of these bones are more unique to this animal than others, or are more thoroughly described in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth paragraph of the description section you mention the "first finger". This is a bit ambiguous; is this closer to the radius, or the ulna? It would be great if you could clarify this.
It is the finger that corresponds to the human thumb, not sure how best to explain it without being too anthropocentric. I added or "thumb"... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I'd put in parentheses "towards the radius", and remove "thumb". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the word "thumb" is used after all in some dinosaur literature, such as:[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is a condyle?
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence, "The lower jaw did not have a coronoid process or a supradentary bone, a common feature of beaked theropods (ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, therizinosaurs and birds), but unusual among theropods in general", it is ambiguous where or not the lack of a coronoid process is a common feature of beaked theropods; maybe say either "the lack of which is a common...", or "the presence of which".
Ah, of course, added "lack of which". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably link "maxilla" and "rhamphotheca" to the glossary of bird terms.
There is actually a dinosaur glossary in the making[4], based on the bird glossary. Once it's up and running, such terms will be linked there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: we can't currently link to the glossary in prep (I tried and was reverted on Cetiosauriscus) because it is in a sandbox. Even though linking with the template {{dinogloss}} will automatically link to the glossary once it is a full article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you not just say "openings" instead of "foramina"?
The article generally uses anatomical terms throughout, even after they have been explained in parenthesis, so I think it would be inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue with this later; great job so far. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the history of discovery sections, the "Nemegt, Tsagan Khushu, Altan Ula IV and Naran Bulak localities" have no meaning to me; is there any way that you could get them on a map or at least give a concise description of where they are in the Nemegt Basin? If it's not really possible to do this concisely, though, it'd probably be better just to leave it as is, or maybe even exclude that piece of information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I only have that one map that shows the Nemegt locality, but the others are somewhat nearby, so the map also indicates the general area within the Nemegt Basin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, added "on". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to the longer spelling, which seems to be preferred in newer sources, while the older spelling is common in older. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences "The Polish-Mongolian expeditions were notable for being led by women, among the first to name new dinosaurs. The fossils discovered in these expeditions shed new light on the interchange of fauna between Asia and North America during the Cretaceous period" don't seem to have much to do with the dinosaur. It seems to me like there is enough information on this expedition to make a separate article on it, if you are worried that this fact would be without an article to properly house it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was accepted at the Deinocheirus FAC, though. I think it is interesting for the context here especially since the type specimen of this dinosaur was found by a woman, and the genus was named by two other women, which was pretty unique for the time. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Maybe you could say "These discoveries were notable for being led by some of the first women to name dinosaurs" or something along those lines. Without that, it doesn't seem very relevant or significant. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "including some of the first to name new dinosaurs." The fact that the expeditions were led by women was also very unique at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is addressed by my suggested fix above. Besides, the wording you just suggested seems to be ambiguous; one can interpret it as 1. some of the women were among the first to name dinosaurs or 2. they were among the first women to name dinosaurs. My proposed fix covers both the women leading the expedition, and them being among the first women to name new dinosaurs. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the proposed wording ("These discoveries were notable for being led by some of the first women to name dinosaurs"), it could be read as if there had been other expeditions lead by women before, just not women who had named dinosaurs. It doesn't really specify that the leading part is also significant in itself. We need to underline two firsts; among the first led by women, and among the first to name new dinosaurs. I tried to make it clearer with "were notable for being led by women, some of which were among the first women to name new dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your wording is good, as long as it includes "these discoveries", so the relevance is clear. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the expeditions were led by women, the discoveries were made during the expeditions (should go without saying that some of the discoveries were made by the women involved, when women naming taxa is already also mentioned in the sentence). FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These dinosaurs would probably have held their backs habitually in horizontal pose, so though the erect postures were probably possible to attain, they would not have been typical. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly because when it is established in the article early on that the numbers refer to specimens, I imagine they will know this once reading further into the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "Gallimimus mongoliensis" be in italics in the sentence "Barsbold informally referred to a nearly complete skeleton (IGM 100/14) as 'Gallimimus mongoliensis', but since it differs from Gallimimus in some details, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi and Barsbold proposed in 2006 that it probably belongs to a different genus"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a nomen nudum, not yet a validly published name, the convention is not to use italics. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Ornithomimosaurs belonged to the group Maniraptoriformes of coelurosaurian theropods, which also includes modern birds", it would make more sense to say "belonged to the Maniraptoriformes clade" instead of "belonged to the group Maniraptoriformes". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "clade Maniraptoriformes", though it is pretty interchangeable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review more of this article soon; it's certainly interesting. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know there was an article, linked. I put "capable og grasping" in parenthesis instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved "a" after "probably". FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The animal may have walked across the floor of a pond, breaking through the sediment layer with the tracks while it was soaked from rain or contained water" seems to contradict the "probably dry environment". If this is conflict with this theory, I think it would be good to distinguish it more. You could say, for example, "Another theory is..." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dry environment only contradicts flooding, not that there could have been wet from rain, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added "(due to the seemingly loose connection between some of the skull bones)". The paper doesn't explain what it was used for, but it is usually related to feeding. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Also, I meant that it would be interesting to see where the kinesis occurred; did the upper mandible have a joint just before it? Or was it behind the eye? Etc. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "at the back of the skull". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say "preserved" instead of "preserve" in the sentence "In 2001, palaeontologists Mark A. Norell, Makovicky, and Currie reported a Gallimimus skull (IGM 100/1133) and an Ornithomimus skull that preserve soft tissue structures on the beak"? They are both grammatically correct, but at least to me, "preserved" seems more natural to use. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but could be either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "Barrett also calculated that a 440 kilograms (970 lb) Gallimimus would have needed between 0.07 and 3.34 kilograms (0.15 and 7.36 lb) of food per day, depending on whether it had an ectothermic or endothermic ("warm" or "cold"-blooded) metabolism, which he found to be unfeasible if it was a filter-feeder", it sort of sounds like you are calling its metabolism unfeasible. Maybe say "an intake which he found..." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, like the source, I think it is bets to be specific, since non-fossil bones can of course also be found in the same areas. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in the same posture as in the opposite photo, don't remember how erect it was, but that is certainly tre for the photo uder classification, so added the text there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Some initial comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As evidenced by its relative Ornithomimus, it would have had feathers.—Is this certain, or should there be a "probably"
Palaeontologists would be pretty certain, following phylogenetic bracketing. We don't know sabretoothed cats had fur, but no one doubts they did, following that logic. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and had three digits with curved claws—perhaps "each had"
Added "each". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • amphiplatyan, intercentrum, pneumaticity, manus, delopectoral parasphenoid—some of these seem unnecessarily technical, and those that have no link or gloss are totally opaque
As mentioned above, a dinosaur glossary based on the bird glossary is in the making, thanks to Jens Lallensack. Once it is done, I think we will go back and link older FAs to that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shovel-like shape was similar to that of thecommon seagull—Since there is no such thing as the common seagull, why not change to common gull, which is what is linked anyway. I can't access Hurum, is he definitely referring to Larus canus? It seems remarkably precise considering the general similarity between the bills of most gull species, and I don't see how the bill of any Larus species can reasonably be described as shovel-shaped. Nor does your fossil head remind me of any gull I've seen. skull of common gull
He is only referring to the lower jaw, though. Hurum says: "The shape of the dentary in Gallimimus is comparable to that of the front of the dentary in the common seagull (Larus) and indicates a similar shaped bill. The seagull-like lower jaw suggests that Gallimimus, like seagulls,had an opportunistic, possibly omnivorous diet..." So he uses the term common seagull, whatever that is, while only referring to its genus name... Not sure what to about that, actually... FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • colourisation—should this be "colouration"?
I think you're right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • beaks of anseriform birds, which use these for manipulating food, straining sediments, filter-feeding by segregating food items from other material, and for cutting plants while grazing. They found the Northern shoveller...'—the beak of the shoveller is nothing like that of the common gull to which we were previously referred, although in this case it is unarguably shovel-shaped
It is only a comparison with the lamellae in the shoveller's beak, not the overall shape of the beak. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These should be addressed now, Jimfbleak. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Thanks for the tweaks, Dunkleosteus77, but why did the following explanatory sentence have to be removed? "the first vertebra that connects with the occipital condyle at the back of the skull." Also, feel free to add more points you may have. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that was a very complicated explainer for what cervical vertebrae are, it effectively said in very big words, “the vertebrae that attach to the back of the head.” Also normally I’d ce the entire page and add comments in one or two edits but I keep getting interrupted, but I’ll get there in the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a explanation of what the atlas vertebra is, which is the first vertebra that attaches to the back of the skull. I doubt most readers know this. Cervical vertebrae are just the neck vertebrae collectively, which is explained elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case you might wanna re-add that with less big words like, “the first neck vertebra,” or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the supposedly "big" words are? Occipital condyle? It's an important anatomical feature, it is the part of the skull through which the atlas is connected. I've re added the explanation in parenthesis, I see no compelling reason to remove explanations of anatomical terms. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel mentioning the occipital condyle is largely unnecessary since you’re just trying to explain what the atlas is. You could just say, “back of the head,” because right now your explainer requires an explainer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the condyle, kept the rest as is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the magazine name is listed in the source, but I don't think it's important to mention in the article text. As a nomen nudum, not validly published, such names are not italicised. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re gonna mention Sanchusaurus you might as well mention who gave the name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say who came up with the name, it seems the magazine only reported the name, but I have mentioned who assigned it to Gallimimus. In any case, the importance here is not who coined that name, but the fact that it was assigned to Gallimimus at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is presented and linked in the discovery section. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the source does so, I wouldn't want to use words not used therein. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a one of a kind fossil, as explained under history, it is very rare for fossil bones to be preserved with tracks, so the circumstances are important. And it also gives some insight into how this particular animal died. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They help create bone, but the source doesn't specify this. I added "(important components of bone)" though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed some things back, because the rewordings didn't really reflect the meaning that was intended. Some duplinks have also been removed. For example, generic name just links to genus, so there is no reason for a separate link. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that looks like a support from me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note to the reviewers that I just added some speed estimates, which I only discovered now, of course a major oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Given that there is a large number of images, I'll discuss only these which may have issues. Pre-emptively, it seems like all images are used in good places but no ALT text can be found anywhere. Otherwise:

I'm not sure I see this? The full citation is seen under the licence tag. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why it is used in that particular section (how it was formerly depicted), and the inaccuracy is explained in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, from an image perspective this seems ready; no comment on any other point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking good...quibbles below...

Gallimimus is known from the Nemegt Formation in the Gobi Desert of southern Mongolia. This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically.... at this point in the article, we've already established it comes from the Nemegt formation so no need to declare it again, so convert to, "The Nemegt formation has never been dated radiometrically"
Hehe, actually, the Nemegt Formation itself isn't mentioned until the palaeoecology section; only the Nemegt Basin (the area the formation is named after) and the Nemegt locality (the place within this area where some Gallimimus specimens have been found) are mentioned earlier under history. Granted, it is confusing that they use the same name (I have also been misled by this), but they refer to different things... FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right/my bad. ok strike that....

Otherwise looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 20 July 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/Gallimimus/archive1&oldid=851568387"