Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxalaia/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) 07:43, 22 July 2018 [1].

Oxalaia

[edit]
Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a spinosaurid dinosaur discovered in Brazil, it has undergone a successful GA-review by Funkmonk, a peer review, a copy edit at the guild, and the restoration has been thoroughly checked at WP:DINOART. The contributions/expansions I've made to Oxalaia are part of a project of mine to bring all spinosaurid articles to at least GA status and half to FA, in hopes of it being a good/featured topic in the future. This is the second spinosaurid article to be nominated for FA after Baryonyx. I'm happy with how much it has grown over the past few months and I believe the article fits the criteria, I am the major contributor for Oxalaia though, so it could benefit from a pair or more of extra eyes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • I have already mentioned this problem during the image review, and elaborating on it now: The legs in both the hypothetical life reconstruction and the scale chart are too short. I know they are based on the Ibrahim et al. (2014) reconstruction of the related Spinosaurus. However, I don't know of a source stating that Oxalaia might have had similar body proportions than Spinosaurus; on the contrary, the recent reconstruction of a Brazilian spinosaurine by Aureliano et al. 2018 shows proportions typical for all other spinosaurids. Importantly, Ibrahim et al. specifically state that with legs this short it "must have been an obligate quadruped on land". Bipedality with proportions like these is, plainly speaking, impossible, simply due to the anterior position of the center of mass. Yet, you reconstruct it as a biped, thus mixing separate hypothesis that cannot be mixed and violating Wikipedia:No original research. The only serious way to reconstruct the species is to stick to the sources (the Aureliano reconstruction).
We already discussed this in the image review, the Ibrahim et al. hypothesis on quadrupedalism has largely fallen out of favor, most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs. If we're going by Ibrahim et al. alone then these[2][3][4] restorations on the Spinosaurus article should be removed. One of the most well-known characteristics of theropod arms is that they were simply not built to bear weight, the animal's shoulders would be driven back into its neck if it tried this; resulting in internal decapitation. As for the Auerliano et al. specimen, it originates from the Ariape Basin and likely belongs to Irritator or Angaturama, both of which have of course been restored with longer legs. However, due to Oxalaia being most closely related to Spinosaurus, it follows logic that Spinosaurus should be used as a basis for the restoration. The chimera hypothesis has also been refuted, such as in this 2017 abstract.[5] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to butt in, but I don't see how the latter issue about showing it as a biped with a short legs is an issue when every single Spinosaurus reconstruction (rightfully) shows a bipedal posture as well. If you think that's an issue as well, surely a statement from a reputable palaeontologist could be found arguing against quadrupedality. I would also refute the idea that giving it short legs is excessively WP:OR; we reconstruct prehistoric animals using phylogenetic bracketing, inferring from their closest relatives, and in this case the closest relative with known limb proportions is Spinosaurus, not Baryonyx. I could claim WP:OR on Paranthodon having a reconstruction showing shoulder spines, but that would be dumb. Regarding Aureliano's study, they made no specific mention of Oxalaia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question that there are arguments against quadrupedality, and I'm certainly not asking for reconstructing it like this. But if you want to keep the proportions proposed by this single and still controversial paper, then you should reconstruct it the same way they did: swimming. Yes, I do feel that any image showing the Ibrahim Spinosaurus engaging in bipedal locomotion should be removed. Ibrahim himself stated that this is not possible, and as long as this hasn't been questioned, it is OR to reconstruct it this way. You are arguing that most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs – not sure how you come to this conclusion; if there really is a published paper to source this, please tell me which, I would be very interested in it. And no, Phylogenetic bracketing does only work when you have at least two species to span the bracket, here you only have Spinosaurus, thus no bracket. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's appeared in the literature, but nearly every reputable palaeontologist who's touched on the issue online has thought of the idea of at best unsupported and at worst utterly ridiculous. Anyway, I suppose you're correct it's not "bracketing", in the true sense, but we're still inferring from the closest relative, which is A-okay within the guidelines of WP:DINO. Any suggestion of longer legs would also fail to make a bracket, and it would be inferring based off of more distant relatives. If short legs aren't acceptable, then long legs are even worse. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't appeared so much in official publications from what I can tell. The controversy behind the hind limb size has been largely sorted out, such as in the abstract previously mentioned, and these discussions between Ibrahim et al. with Scott Hartman and Mark Witton.[6][7] However, the quadrupedalism continues to be met with heavy skepticism, a single scientific publication (Ibrahim et al. (2014)) cannot simply contradict one of the most basic principles of dinosaur anatomy that even most amateurs are aware of. Read how Jaime Headden touches on the subject,[8] Although a blog might not exactly be a "serious" source, these are still statements by a reputable person that is well-versed in paleobiology and biomechanics. As it is, I would like to get back to working on fixes to the article for FA. This is turning into a discussion on dinosaur anatomy more one for how to improve content on Wikipedia. As I said in the image review, if further scientific scrutiny confirms the ability of theropod hands and shoulders to somehow withstand the full weight of a 15 meter long creature without shattering, then I shall change my drawing. This is too much thought to put into speculative paleoart that will likely be fully replaced if more complete skeletal material is ever found. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic inferring from a sister-group relationship alone has no justification, as the feature in question might well be an autapomorphy. You would do better reconstructing it based on the synapomorphies of a clade that is a little bit more inclusive. Alternatively, considering that this genus is only known from two jaw fragments, simply removing the two hypothetical reconstructions might even be the most honest solution. The issue with the Spinosaurus legs is independent from this. No, I don't think anything has been sorted out regarding the chimera hypothesis, the abstract you are citing is not a refutation; these are basically the same authors of the original Ibrahim study – if they have to defend their work in such a way, it only shows the opposite: that there is disagreement. All the blogs you are now citing do actually support my point: the Ibrahim reconstruction is incompatible with bipedal locomotion. Still, you base the reconstruction on it, leading to a thing violating basic laws of physics. I said everything there is to say, and now leave this point for others to decide. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Read your recent addition only now. As I explained above, I certainly do not ask you to reconstruct it in a quadrupedal pose. Rather, it is OK if you 1) reconstruct it in a swimming pose as in the original (although I personally don't favor this option), 2) reconstruct it based on synapomorphies of its clade, or 3) do not reconstruct it at all. But as it currently is, it is OR and certainly not what any of the paleontologists involved had in mind, and therefore I am unable to support the nomination. But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I alluded to earlier, though, precedent says it's fine to include speculative reconstructions in FAs about fragmentary taxa, like Dromaeosauroides and Paranthodon, nor does it, in my opinion, fall under any of the criteria for removing an image listed at WP:DINO and WP:DINOART. As far as I can tell you're criticizing it based on your own view of it without precedent or guidelines backing your claim it should be removed up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that was never my point. My point is that the reconstructions are incorrect and not in agreement with any published source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we cannot come to an agreement on this. As far as I'm aware, there must be consensus and these particular points must have been addressed, otherwise this review cannot properly proceed. Inquiring FunkMonk and IJReid for opinions on this matter, since they have experience with dinosaur FAs. Also because if what you've said is true, then none of these[9][10][11][12][13][14] images belong on Wikipedia articles and certainly not on Featured ones. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Jens is saying that the reconstruction should be more conservative because we only know of one spinosaurid with leg proportions like that (or at least that single specimen assigned to Spinosaurus that is not even from the same formation), while all others don't. And Spinosaurus is thought not to have been bipedal due to those proportions, so we can't have it both ways; either it has short legs and is not bipedal, or it has normal legs and is bipedal. He's not arguing against speculative restorations in general, just saying they should not introduce controversial ideas, and that's more in line with FAC criteria than "regular" articles. So I think it's a valid point, and also keep in mind that Jens is an actual palaeontologist, whereas I'm just some guy reading about dinosaurs in my spare time. As for the other images, it seems they have the problem of showing Spinosaurus as bipedal, but at least it is less controversial to show the weird proportions there, because they show Spinosaurus itself. One of them is also from a scientific publication (the one by Knüppe). FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact no consensus can be reached, I suggest the reconstruction simple be removed, a situation I think nobody will be outright opposed to, even if it's not everybody's preferred solution (and thinking over it again, I'm beginning to agree more with Jens, but I digress). Alternatively, a reconstruction not showing the legs, perhaps with it in water, might be useful. As far the Spinosaurus issue, I suggest we discuss that on its talk page, since it's a more complicated and pressing WP:SYNTH issue. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The water idea seems pretty good. As for the issue with Spinosaurus itself, I think that will not be solved for many years. Some independent researchers really need to look at that material, Sereno and friends seem a bit too entrenched. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could redraw the legs and place it in the water, as Jens previously stated; such as in Tomopteryx's Halzkaraptor, would that be acceptable? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting not having the legs visible at all so as to avoid the issue; presumably hidden under opaque water. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should go with Jens Lallensack and FunkMonk's previous idea, the legs should simply be redrawn to hover in a swimming pose on both images, so as to also not remove the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't half the dispute about their size in the first place though? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking of hiding the legs entirely, but if Jens is ok with showing them under water, I'm ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine I think, it just shouldn't show the animal engaging in bipedal locomotion. But it would be tricky to add water to the scale chart? This is how a recent paper solves the problem: [15]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm wondering if the scale chart is valid in the first place, because the size estimates presented by Kellner and colleagues (2011) were based on the traditional Spinosaurus reconstruction? Not sure how great the effect is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Water in the scale chart shouldn't be necessary, merely a floating swimming pose like with marine reptile size comparisons. I'm more worried about making the caption even longer; perhaps it could "Tentative size estimate, with the animal seen in a swimming position", with the text going into more detail? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't need to go into that much detail... But if we did, it wouldn't be that weird; captions in FAs are usually quite long anyways. Just look at the one on the Ceratosaurus scale chart, for example. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half-done with the changes to the size chart and restoration, the new images will be up later at WP:DINOART. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Glad we could come to an agreement. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have a bunch of minor comments, more of which I will add the coming days:

  • (in reference to Oxalá) – maybe include "African deity" for explanation, as you have the same degree of explanation for the species name in the lead?
Done
  • spinosaurid theropod dinosaur – this might be too many attributes for the first sentence; think about adding a separate sentence stating it belongs to Spinosauridae. Instead, adding "a poorly known genus" might be a helpful addition.
I'm not sure that's necessary, the same number of attributes (or more) are used in the opening sentences of Velociraptor, Dromaeosauroides, Tyrannosaurus, Diplodocus, and Deinonychus; five other FAs on theropods. And "a poorly known genus" seems redundant, since we already have "Oxalaia is known only from two partial skull bones" in the lead.
Only a very minor suggestion, I write down what comes to my head, and perhaps you are right here – the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the Alcântara Formation – "in" the Alcantara Formation? Also, I would explain what this thing is, e.g. "within the rocks of the Alcantara Formation".
Done
  • Kellner et al. – avoid as many technical terms as possible, especially in the lead and especially when you used the alternative "and colleagues" before already.
Done
  • including two replacement teeth – do you mean two replacement teeth in each tooth position?
Done
  • that better distinguished it from other genera than the various tooth taxa named in the Spinosauridae such as Siamosaurus, which may become invalid in the future. – This does not seem like the place to have this information, it is not really relevant, I would remove.
Done
  • This environment had a large variety of lifeforms also present in Middle-Cretaceous North Africa. – Maybe better explain why Middle-Cretaceous North Africa is important in this context.
Done
  • Elaine Machado – better unlink, it does not appear to meet notability requirements.
Done
  • some terms that needs a link and/or explanation: bone bed, holotype
Done
  • and stated in a press release that "this is how most scientific discoveries happen, it was by accident" – since the source is in Portuguese you need to include the exact original quote as well, according to WP:MOS#Quotations.
Being worked on
How do I go about doing that? Can you give me some examples of the format on other articles, etc? Because there are a few quotes in Oxalaia originally in Portuguese, and I feel like simply writing down both the translation and the original would be rather awkward and cluttered, so I'm assuming this is done some other way.
If you translated it by yourself, you need to give the original quote according to the manual of style (e.g., in brackets and italics right after your translation). If you got the translation from somewhere else, it is sufficient to cite the source of the translation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still looks rather awkward to me and seems like it'd interrupt the reading flow, can you link some examples of articles where this has been done?
I don't know, would have to search. Not a critical issue for me personally, though, this would not keep me from supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jaw fossils were presented at the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in March 2011, where the discoveries of Oxalaia […] were announced – Two issues. First, I do not understand what "presented at" means here, do you mean "presented by", and if so, where did they present (a journal?). Second, "where the discoveries of Oxalaia were announced" means the same as "the jaw fossils were presented", and is thus redundant.
Done
  • surpassing the previous record holder Pycnonemosaurus that measured 8.9 metres (29.2 feet) – this reads like sensational fan-speech and is not professional; I would simply write something like "it is larger than Pycnonemosaurus, which was estimated at 8.9 metres by one study".
Done
  • The maxilla extend forwards along the underside – the plural of maxilla is maxillae.
Done
  • It cannot be confirmed whether this reduction in tooth number is due to ontogeny; for that, a larger sample size is necessary. – Unclear. Do you mean that it is unclear if the number of teeth got reduced during growth? This would be unusual, as the contrary is usually the case in dinosaurs.
Done; fixed the wording, it was supposed to refer to the smaller quantity of teeth in the aforementioned Spinosaurus specimen (MSNM V4047).
  • It also features a shallow dent in the middle, suggesting it was located near the external nares (nasal openings) – but if so, wouldn't it be located more anteriorly than indicated in your head diagram?--Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I found this [16] diagram by the authors illustrating where the maxilla should go, I was off by one tooth. Also linked that source on the image information page.
  • it is also rounder than that of Spinosaurus – maybe add "in side view" (if correct) to be precise? Otherwise you might think it is rounded in top view or whatever.
Done
  • The maxillae extend forwards along the underside; they are encased between the praemaxillae and border an elaborate, triangle-shaped pit in a structure known as the secondary palate. – A bit vague, it sounds like the secondary palate was located anterior to the anterior processes of the maxillae. I think the whole roof of the mouth formed by the premaxilla and maxilla should be called a secondary palate, thus the anterior processes would be part of it. Furthermore, it seems you lack a citation here, as I can't find a mention of the secondary palate in the Kellner paper.
Done
  • This structure is more ornamented in Oxalaia than in other spinosaurids, which have smoother secondary palates. – But I think your source (Kellner) is only talking about the premaxillary part of the secondary palate, not about the maxillary part. It is generally safer to stick more closely with the original wording.
Done
  • The two ventral processes of the maxilla are very thin and are also present in Suchomimus, Cristatusaurus, and MNHN SAM 124, although not as exposed – not sure what the ventral processes would be. Do you mean the anterior processes you were talking about in the previous sentences? If so, I would call them by name from the beginning on.
Done
Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; – not sure about the use of outgroup in this context; maybe reformulate to avoid it.
  • they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan – what does this mean? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the above two suggestions was touched by Lusotitan, under his only comment marked as Partly done. Here is the original excerpt from the source: "Oxalaia is clearly more related to the African spinosaurines (Figs 8 and 10A). Hence, at least with respect to Angaturama and Oxalaia, the Brazilian spinosaurid taxa represent successive outgroups to the African spinosaurine material MSNM V4047 (and MNHN SAM 124). Spinosaurinae seem to have been more morphologically diverse than previously thought."[17] - Like I said below, I wasn't sure how to explain "successive outgroups" to general readers, so the sentence in the article looks to have come out with some undesirable results. Any idea how I can fix it? I'm still not certain. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A possibility could be "The Brazilian genera Oxalaia and Angaturama were recovered as the two closest relatives of Spinosaurus, with Oxalaia forming its sister taxon. Though fragmentary, the Brazilian material indicates that spinosaurines were more diverse than previously recognized." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works quite well actually, added it! The only other currently unsolved comment is the one you made about the quotations, marked above as "being worked on". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was found with part of the left side embedded in the rock matrix – you should add that it was found in situ (at its original position within the rock unit), unlike the maxilla fragment, which was a piece collected from the ground that might have moved a bit after being eroded from the rock. Also mention that fossils of the site, when not found in situ, have been removed from the formation by wave action. This will help the reader to get a better picture.
Done
  • The article seems to lack information on the geological setting, but this is important. In what type of rock was the fossil found? How was this rock deposited (by rivers, in a lake, a sabkha, or is it marine)? In context of the palaeoecology, this would also answer the obvious question where the water in the middle of a desert comes from. The next question would be if this setting was the same as that were Spinosaurus was found.
Done, looking up refs on the geology of the Bahariya and Kem Kem formations.
Marked as done, it took me a while but I managed to get the geological info and comparisons in, I tried my best to keep it relevant without going into unnecessary detail. Here are the changes so far,[18] Jens Lallensack, pinging for input. The Discovery section starts off a lot better now I think.
  • It might also be worthwhile to mention and compare with the Araripe basin, where the other spinosaur finds have been found, to provide the reader with a bit more background. You already have it on the map!
Done
  • I would replace or remove the paleogeographic map. It shows the earth at 83 mya, much too young, and therefore is very misleading, as the southern Atlantic was much wider at that time already. During the Cenomanian, when Oxalaia lived, the setting was very different since there might still have been a connection between both continents.
Done, replaced with a palaeogeographic map of the Albian-Cenomanian, which took a lot of effort to find, there don't seem to be many creative commons licensed maps of this particular time span/stage.
  • is a result of the Gondwana supercontinent – sounds like bad English, please check. I would have expected something like "is a result of the connection …".
Done
  • "we believe this is how the species [O. quilombensis] got transported" – seems weird, does it mean "dispersed"? Anyway, I would always be very careful with media accounts on scientific topics; especially regarding something like dinosaurs. From my own experience I can tell that these articles are usually written by people who have absolutely no idea about the topic, and who do not always understand what the scientist actually told them; quotes (if correct, you never know) can be very much out of context.
Being worked on
; "transportada" means "transported" in English, so it is the actual translation. Could this be changed to "dispersed" using brackets? Such as exemplified here[19] in the MOS? Or should it just be removed?
Hm, as transported and dispersed is something very different, I wouldn't do that. If the quote is that obscure and if it does not add significant information, I would just remove. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, removed quote. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has become apparent from the fossil record of Africa and South America that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of Diplodocoidea, Spinosauridae, Abelisauridae, and Carcharodontosauridae – I'm also not entirely sure here what this is trying to say (the composition of animal life correlates with animals?). Not comprehensible enough.
Changed it to be closer to the original statement, "From the distribution and variety of the dinosaur fossil record, it has become apparent that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of Diplodocoidea, Spinosauridae, Abelisauridae, and Carcharodontosauridae." - is this better?
I still don't understand. Do they mean that the observed faunal composition is in accordance with the known evolutionary history of the clades? But if so, why is it so relevant for this article? I really would try to state it using your own words, or, alternatively, just remove it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I guess it's not really that relevant to the article now that I think about it, probably better served for the article of the formation itself. Removed it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happens next? It's been 4 days, sorry if that seems impatient, I'm still new to FAC. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, four days is very little in FAC time! It's mainly a matter of waiting for reviews, and well, I usually just work on other things in the meantime. One thing you can do after two supports is to request a source and image review here:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Lusotitan

[edit]

Should the following comments be addressed, I'll be waiting on a resolution to the disagreement over the restoration before giving support:

All the suggestions below have been implemented, and there is now consensus on the restoration. Lusotitan
  • I would link Alexander Kellner's article from his first mention in the taxobox as well.
Done
  • ...during the Cenomanian of the Late Cretaceous, between 93.9 to 100.5 million years ago. - perhaps say "sometime between" instead here, since we don't have material across the entire Cenomanian.
Done
  • Its fossils were found in 1999 on Cajual Island in the rocks of the Alcântara Formation... - a bit pedantic, perhaps, but "its" fossils doesn't quite feel right here, maybe "known fossils" instead? It doesn't own the fossils, it's a taxon. But again, I might be seeing nothing here. Don't feel obligated to implement this if you disagree.
Done, you're right, it also kinda assumes that they're the only fossils left entirely.
  • ...which is known for its abundance of fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens. - correct me if I'm wrong, but even counting the isolated teeth I don't think there's enough specimens to qualify as an "abundance". Either way, "known for its abundant fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens" seems more natural here.
  • That's how most scientific papers on the Alcantara Formation describe and present it, besides teeth there are many isolated remains found there; although most are in a partial condition, it is still a rich fossil site. Also, "its abundance of" sounds more natural (at least to me), either way is grammatically correct though.
Okay, fair enough then.
  • ...who assigned the specimens to a new genus containing one species, Oxalaia quilombensis. - as the genus is monotypic, the binomial is another name for the article subject and should be bolded. I also usually like to mention that its the type species in sentences like these, but I'll grant this is a bit redundant.
Done
  • Generally, the majority of fossil remains found at the Alcântara Formation consist of teeth and isolated skeletal elements, of which the Laje do Coringa site yields hundreds. - do the sources make it clear if this is hundreds per [unit of time, perhaps year] or merely that's it's yielded hundreds of specimens? If the former, that obviously needs including, if the latter, it should say "has yielded". If it's not clear, then there's not really anything that can be done and the statement is fine.
Done, added "has yielded".
  • Besides the partial skull bones, numerous spinosaurid teeth had earlier been reported from the Laje do Coringa site. - do any sources indicate teeth have been found since? I would assume so, and if so then it should be mentioned they were found later as well. If not, obviously this can't be included the statement should be left alone.
  • I think it's probable that more teeth have been found since, but since it's not stated in any of the sources then yeah, the sentence should be left as it is.
  • The species description of Oxalaia, among many others, were composed into a volume of 20 works on prehistoric biodiversity that was published by the Academy in March 2011.[5][12] Oxalaia was described and named by Brazilian palaeontologists Alexander Kellner, Elaine Machado, Sergio Azevedeo, Deise Henriques, and Luciana Carvalho in 2011; - err, isn't this the same subject communicated slightly differently in two sentences in a row? Both are about the fact that Oxalaia was described in 2011, just with some different details added on.
Done, Merged the two sentences into each other
  • the type species is Oxalaia quilombensis and as such is the eighth officially named species of theropod from Brazil. - I'm not really sure what the "and as such" is doing here.
Done, well spotted! I do love removing a good redundancy.
  • The generic name Oxalaia is derived from the name of African deity Oxalá - looking at the article for the deity, it has many names, and "Oxalá" is only used in the section about the American beliefs. Is it known by this name in Africa? If not, "African deity Oxalá" isn't quite correct.
  • I'm not sure, the paper puts it as "The generic name comes from Oxalá, the most respected masculine deity in the African pantheon, introduced in Brazil during slavery"
Not a huge deal, it's not the topic of the article anyways.
  • Most general readers won't know what a specimen number is; most uses of them are accompanied by the word "specimen" or are in a list of taxa, but a few are isolated and could be confusing. Adding the word "specimen(s)" near these might be useful.
Done, I added "specimen(s)" near a few more, but I feel like doing it for every single one would be jarring, perhaps only during the first mentions?
Seems fair to me.
  • The referred maxilla fragment (MN 6119-V) has two alveoli and a broken third one that includes a partial tooth. - since you were just talking about other taxa, I would say "The maxilla fragment referred to Oxalaia (MN 6119-V) has two...".
Done
  • Both show typical spinosaurine dentition; morphotype II, however, has smoother tooth enamel. - is this smoother than morphotype I specifically, or compared to typical spinosaurine dentition? It's a bit unclear.
Done, it shows smoother enamel than the morphotype, not typical spinosaurine teeth.
  • Oxalaia's remaining teeth display a closer morphology to morphotype I while the second grouping of teeth represent either worn down morphotype I teeth or an undescribed spinosaurine from the Alcântara Formation. - err, "remaining" teeth? The paragraph never established we were talking about some of its teeth.
Done, removed "remaining".
  • The type elements of Oxalaia closely resemble those of the neotype and holotype fossils of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus - the given reference is from 2011, from before the description of the neotype. It can't possibly support an assertion the two specimens closely resemble each other.
Done, I've not a clue as to how "neotype and holotype" got in there, it is supposed to refer to specimens MSNM V4047 and MNHN SAM 124 from Spinosaurus. Also added in the missing PLOS one reference to that sentence.
  • The other, more fragmentary taxa such as Siamosaurus and "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis are based only on teeth and might become invalid in the future, when they may be reassigned to Ichthyovenator, Spinosaurus, or Suchomimus. The habit of naming theropods from isolated teeth or tooth fragments has resulted in many invalid and synonymous genera; it has also occurred with spinosaurids and is compounded by the common lack of overlapping skeletal remains—a precondition of validly distinguishing taxa.[16][18] - this feels like it should be relevant, but nothing in this excerpt is tying any of this information to Oxalaia as opposed to just being about Spinosauridae. As things are, this passage does not belong in this article rather than the family-level one.
  • Most general readers won't be aware of the history of research into spinosaurids, and how many genera in the family are so tentatively assigned or referred to new genera. In comparison to Oxalaia, which has good enough remains that it can be considered separate from other taxa with more confidence, especially due to the overlapping remains with Angaturama, Spinosaurus, Cristatusaurus, etc. Therefore I think it should stay.
Fair enough then.
  • In 2017, a phylogenetic analysis by Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz showed that Oxalaia was more closely related to African spinosaurines than to Brazilian spinosaurines like Angaturama - I'd prefer this say "an analysis by [...] found that" to prevent it sounding like an objective statement.
Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan, accounting for the small differences in their anatomies. - err, Oxalaia has no remains from the body. I see what this trying to say, but I feel it could be misleading (ex. a reader might feel this means they didn't have the short legs, when we don't know). Could a better term be found than "body plan"?
Done I see what you're trying to say, that is a problem, but I'm having difficulty finding another term. We might need more input on this, I believe it came as a byproduct of attempting to explain "successive outgroups" to lay readers.
Marked as done, per Jens' suggestion above.
  • All mentions of "diplodocids" should read diplodocoid; it's referring to what I presume are rebbachisaurids and dipldocoid is the term used in reference three.
Done
  • Since "Titanosauridae" is not generally recognized as a single family, I think it'd be preferrable to use "titanosaur", since that's what the linked article is called anyway (an article that uses Titanosauria, which might be confusing from a link labelled "titanosaurid"). Titanosaurid is what's used in the reference, but "titanosaur" seems like an acceptable non-WP:SYNTH substitute as long as "titanosaurian" isn't used.
Done
  • Reference three makes no reference of an abelisaurid; only the term abelisauroid used. Additionally, the reference says no large carnivores other than carcharodontosaurs and spinosaurs are present in the sample from Laje do Coringa, and that the only abelisauroid present is the Masiakasaurus-related noasaurid. As far as I can tell, the mention of an abelisaurid being present is entirely erroneous.
Done, nice catch, I must've misread it as "abelisaurid".
  • Notosuchians are mentioned in reference three (with genera identified) but are absent from the list of contemporary taxa in the palaeoecology section; they are not crocodilians.
Done, I forgot crocodilians are only a small part of the greater crocodylomorph superorder.
  • Also, a single-vertebral centrum was referred to Spinosaurus sp., suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region. - the paper repeats the previously recognized two teeth morphotypes evidence for there being more than one; they don't connect the vertebra to the argument.
Done, please clarify, is it the "also" you want me to remove? Because this paragraph was not previously discussing the morphotypes.
No, what I mean is the current sentences states that there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that this suggests the presence of a second spinosarid; the paper doesn't claim this, it says there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that teeth suggest there's a second spinosaurid. Two different facts about spinosaurids in the formation are being conflated here.
I see what you mean, removed "suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region." since that is already stated in the description paragraph discussing Medeiros's morphotypes.
  • with a few exceptions like Oxalaia quilombensis... - this isn't every difference in fauna listed in table one of reference three, so I'd say "with a few exceptions including Oxalaia..."
Done
  • It has become apparent from the fossil record of Africa and South America that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of diplodocidae, spinosauridae, abelisauridae, and carcharodontosauridae. - all family names here should be capitalized. Additionally, "Diplodocidae" should again read "Rebacchisauridae".
Done, also removed duplicate "diplodocoidea" link.
  • Drive by comment - I usually don't FAC review articles I have GA reviewed, but I have one comment. Wouldn't it be better to show for example a diagram of a complete Spinosaurus skull, like this[21] (so readers can see the placement of the bones in the skull), than a photo of yet another fragmentary piece (the one under classification) that will be hard to identify by the average reader? Also, it might look better if the image was then right aligned, since there is more white space on the right, but also because the subject would then "face" the text. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I also got around to fixing the broken text on that diagram.

Image review

[edit]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, clarified it, is this good?
  • Clarified it.
  • File:Oxalaia Size Chart.svg: Are we OK with thusly disclaimed images in FA? Also, it's a bit unclear on who is responsible for which part of the image.
  • Done, I understand your concern, but the "Speculative paleoart" tag is meant to state that the image is hypothetical or theoretical, since the animal is only known from scant remains the size estimate is not for certain. Same goes for the life restoration. These are OK with FAs on dinosaurs as far as I've seen, here are two other examples.[22][23] The diagram is by User:Slate Weasel as declared in the author section, with modifications to the head shape to fit the scientist's description of the animal.
  • Done: Added sources for all images, even though I've never seen that done for dinosaur FAs, these reconstructions are all checked out at WP:DINOART before being placed on articles so they're quite sound most often.
  • File:Spinosaurus skull en.svg: Use seems fine, I presume that it doesn't resemble the source sketch too much? Because that sketch does not look like it's freely licensed to me.
  • It seems inevitable that any skeletal should resemble the source, otherwise one would have to deform the shape of the bones and mislead the viewer. From what I've seen that doesn't count as copyright infringement.
  • The restoration is accurate, as for the license, at the bottom of the page on the source it is stated: "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise specified".
  • Not sure what you mean about the source? The link works fine for me.
  • Done, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Replaced broken link with web archive of the previous version.
  • Done, Ok.
No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Alt text has been added to all images.

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

I took a look at PR and felt this article was ok then. Its been buffed and I can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

This ought really to be looked at by someone with subject expertise. As far as I can judge, the sources seem to be of the required quality and reliability, being mainly from learned journals. I have checked the links and they are all working. I have a few minor queries/quibbles:

  • A number of the online links go to abstracts, the article itself being behind a paywall. In these instances the (subscription required) template is useful. This applies I think to 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 22 and 24
  • Done, for all except #22 (now #23), which is not under a paywall, being released under the same volume as the Kellner (2011) ref. I also removed a duplicate reference while I was at it.
  • Ref 14 is lacking publisher details. National Geographic I believe?
  • Done
  • Ref 15: I'm not sure this serves any practical purpose.
  • Done, You're right, removed it.

Otherwise the sources are consistently presented in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the sources was suggested by me, and the current selection of sources is pretty comprehensive, if not complete. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done, usually I'll ask someone else (like Jonesey) for help with source/citation editing but these are simple enough to fix by myself ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just one formatting query as I promote this: are the citations for the sentence "Generally, the majority of fossil remains found at the Alcântara Formation..." meant to be out of order? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 22 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/Oxalaia/archive1&oldid=851568497"