Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stegoceras/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) 23:02, 30 September 2016 [1].

Stegoceras

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a genus of dome-headed dinosaur (the pachycephalosaurs), and the only member of this group to ever be nominated for FAC. Since it is one of the most completely (and first) known of these dinosaurs, it has been the subject of many studies, which we have attempted to summarise here, including various theories about what the dome was used for. It is a GA, has been copyedited, and the bulk of the images are from the CC-licensed journal Plos One. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I'd use "about/around" with a dash. My thinking is "about/around" + "to" between ranges (unneeded for bracketed imperial units) or just dash..
Think I changed all. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link bipedal and vertebral column
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd avoid starting all three paras of lead with "Steogceras.."
Better now? Changed in third paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it last night and thought the rest was okay - will try to look again later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dentition of Stegoceras was heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets). - Plainer English is better where possible without losing meaning, so why not something like, "Stegoceras had teeth that were heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets)."?

Otherwise looks ok I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. For accessibility, having neophytes will be good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I was thinking the same, some of the text may be rather technical, so could be nice to have some "laymen" look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Lotta images here; I'll take a look this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go:
  • File:Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using a skeleton of the species in the infobox seems fine to me. I remember seeing a discussion there about whether reconstructed skeletons are copyrightable and the conclusion was that it's unlikely an attempted replica of a living being could be considered as "creative" enough to establish copyright protection. It's a Flickr image without EXIF whose license was changed to "all rights reserved" after the upload but that doesn't negate the previous free license. Can't check for Flickrwashing as I can't see other uploads.
You mean the users other uploads? It is from this album by the user:[2] As for using skeletons in the infobox, they are much less speculative than life restorations, so are therefore more reliable/"citable". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras Scale Diagram - Steveoc86.svg: Free image on Commons. Using a size comparison image in the section about the description of the genus seems fine for me, however I wonder how that reconstruction arose. Own work, all other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can see how the image "arose" here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras validum.jpg: Free image on Commons. Wonder where the caption comes from. Using a reconstruction of a species which is discussed as a type species (?) of the genus in the description section seems fine for me. Own work, plausible EXIF for the type of the image. All other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can also see in the discussion above how the caption arose. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Journal.pone.0021422.g001 Stegoceras skulls.png: Free file on Commons. Using a CT image of the skull in the section of the skull seems fine for me. The caption is sourced to the Commons file, yes? Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, and it seems to originate from there. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
All captions are adapted from the original journal captions. The journal licenses are listed on the journal site, and well, in the journal-specific Commons license template. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras Hendrickx.jpg: Free file on Commons. A cast of a skull of the type species (?) in the section about the skulls of the genus seems OK. Plausible EXIF that matches other uploads as well as in theme, can't GIS the image though.
  • File:Stegoceras dome.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the lectotype in the section on the discovery history seems fine for me. Being published in 1907 makes the image PD, not CC-BY, unless the Flickr uploader is the creator of the image/a heir of them, then they can license it as such for those countries where it's not PD.
The Flickr page is just a scan of the old paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1924 Gilmore Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. This specimen appears to be directly discussed in the paragraph adjacent to the image. With the information provided, the copyright license seems to be correct - but I can't see the image in the linked page.
There is a link to the file if you search "Stegoceras" on the page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras ossified tendons.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is in that section because the interpretation of the ossified tendons are discussed in the adjacent text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras AMNH 5450.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The specimen is discussed in the adjacent text (holotype of the synonym, Ornatotholus). FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very loosely relevant there because the text goes into old classification issues, and it is a pretty old image, from the time when classification of the animal was uncertain. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Juvenile Stegoceras.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is there because it discusses flat-headed specimen, and the picture shows one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras mandible.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using the image of the mandible and teeth in the section on paleoecology seems fine for me. With the information given, the license tag seems correct to me.
  • File:Growth series of Stegoceras validum.png: Free image on Commons. Using a growth series image in the section on ontogeny seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras TMP 84.5.1.png: Free image on Commons. Using subadult and adult images in the section on development seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Prenocephale combat orientation.png: Free image on Commons. Using images of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skull density.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Cephalophus sections.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skulls.png: Free image on Commons. Using injury images of the skull in the section discussing a possible combat role of the skull seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Dinosaur Provincial Park 01.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the discovery site in the section on palaeoecology seems pertinent, but I wonder whether it would fit into the discovery history section better. Used elsewhere on the Internet in lower resolution, excluding the Simple Wikipedia. Part of a batch of uploads with different cameras in a geographically circumscribed area. I note that some of other uploads have been marked for deletion in the past.
The section talks about the formation as a whole, and the photo just shows the formation, not the exact spot where the fossils were found. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've copypasted some explanations for mostly identical images. Upon rechecking, I notice that the PLOS template on Commons claims the site uses CC-BY 3.0 but one link is broken and the other one indicate version 4. Otherwise, some images need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What type of alt text do you need?. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the PLOS One template issues would need to be brought up at the Commons template page[4], it is something that affects all images uploaded from there, not just the ones in this article, so it can only be fixed centrally. Seems a discussion about the issue has already been started:[5] Could you take a look at the alt-text, LittleJerry? I'm a bit burned out by doing other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't check the ALTs, but aside from the PLOS template it seems like everything else is ready to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the template issue needs a wider discussion before it can be dealt with. I'm not sure I can just go in and unilaterally change it, it will affect thousands of Commons files. As for this FAC specifically, it is a free CC-license either way. It is a problem with the specific templates, not with the images here, which would be outside the scope of a FAC, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people complaining that unclear CC licenses are equivalent to a file being unlicensed. I am fine with punting the template issue to a discussion on Commons, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the talk page there with a link back to this FAC. Whatever that template says now, the images themselves are CC by 4, so they are free either way. But yeah, it is not an issue that should just linger on, I'm surprised it hasn't been dealt with already. If nothing happens, I may just go and change it myself, but I'm a bit wary of that. Maybe post about it in a more widely seen section (license village pump or somehting). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I myself do not have anything to add, and if the admins will accept my 2 cents as GA reviewer I support this article being a FA. IJReid discuss 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In addition, I was wondering whether Atsme might be interested as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will review this afternoon. Atsme📞📧 14:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this article is that I cannot find anything to criticise ;) An absolutely comprehensive article, and the content is sound throughout. The "History and discovery" section is strictly chronological, which I found interesting. It makes the information flow very clear, but at the same time leads to a separaton of information, so that the reader needs to keep track of everything in order to be able to follow. I really like it this way. Just to nit-pick about something, the sentence "The neural spines of the caudal (tail) vertebrae decreased in height from front to back on the tail.[5]" could be savely removed, as this character is to be expected in most tetrapods. Support, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As for the neural spine issue, I have two thoughts about this: A; regular readers may not know that this is a common feature, and B; the describers made an effort to specifically mention this feature, so there must be some merit to the info? As for the chronological history section, yeah, there were a few nuts that were hard to crack, for example using the name validus all the way up until the point where it was emended to validum (a reader may think the text uses the old name mistakenly unless they read all the way through). FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I'll remove the neural spine sentence, it was an "extreme" summary of their description that does not really provide any useful information. As for neural spines becoming successively shorter along the tail in all tetrapods, seems there are exceptions?[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme review
Support - This is an excellent article. I hate to nitpick but I want FunkMonk to know that I actually did go over it with a fine tooth comb! Please consider my comments suggestions because it won't change my decision either way. The article is THAT good.
Thanks! Your suggestions are very welcome, English isn't my first language, and the article may be overly technical, so it's nice with any nitpicks... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested tweak to improve flow in lead paragraph: .....but most have since been moved to other genera or deemed junior synonyms. Today all that remains are S. validum and S. novomexicanum, named in 2011 from fossils found in New Mexico.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears serial commas are in use which is ok with me.
Cool, some copy-editors tend to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Stegoceras was small to medium-sized - if I may suggest small to medium in size...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 12 (hypothetical) and have a fascination for dinosaurs - what does UALVP 2 mean? ???
I relegated this info to the history section (specimen UALVP 2 in the University of Alberta Laboratory for Vertebrate Palaeontology), where I found it most appropriate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UALVP 2 was found with small, disarticulated bony elements, which were then thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs), which is not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs). One too many 'whiches'. Suggestion: ... bony elements thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs) which were not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs).
Reworded it roughly in the way you suggested, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...whether the holotype specimen represented the distinct species S. novomexicanum, or if it was a juvenile of either S. validum or Sphaerotholus goodwini, or another previously known pachycephalosaur.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1980s, the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved. Plural? ...the affinities were unresolved.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to either ornithopods or to ceratopsians...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1986, the American palaeontologist Paul Sereno supported...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wikinlinked dimorphic since it was a minor fix
Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stegoceras itself is today seen as more primitive or basal than... Try something to the effect of Revised journal entries in 2003 describe Stegoceras as more primitive or basal than...
Made it more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pachycephalosaur genera were closer related to "fully" domed taxa... Suggest: were more closely related to...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate; having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. It is assumed that they lived on a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects and the sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants. Suggestion: It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate. Their very small, ridged teeth could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. However, it is assumed that their sharp, serrated teeth were ideally suited for a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme📞📧 00:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

Dinosaurs are not really my thing!

That's all good, we need to know if "layreaders" will understand the article as well! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you make the first sentence of the description section a short introduction such as "Stegoceras is a small dinosaur with a long tail that moved about on its two hind legs" or somesuch, so as not to immediately plunge into the detailed description.
Changed a bit, better? Tail length isn't known, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pelvic girdle was very broad for a bipedal archosaur when seen from above," - I suggest you change this sentence around to "When seen from above, the pelvic girdle ..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The femur (thigh bone) " - Why gloss the femur but not other bones?
Most of the other bones don't have common names! But those that do have common names in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "nodes" in this context?
Gave a "common" alternative... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The teeth in the front of the lower and upper jaws were different from those in the back." - This sentence seems redundant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they belonged to," - this sentence is ungrammatical.
Sorry, I don't get it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As no similar remains had been found in the area before, Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they were"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Took it, "they" referred to "remains". FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved." - "were unresolved".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The supratemporal fenestrae show asymmetry in size, and the closure of the frontoparietal suture is variable." - I was surprised to find this present tense sentence among the past tenses ones.
Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These observations were made while comparing with skull and flank lesions on modern sheep skeletons." - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that pachycephalosaurs could therefore also have used their domes for both; displaying a weapon and willingness to use it can be enough to settle disputes in some animals." - Ditto.
Not sure I get this one either, any particular part that is unclear, or the whole thing? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, it is probably OK, or you could consider splitting it into two sentences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness. I am satisfied with the changes made and the article seems to cover the subject very fully. It's surprising how much can be deduced from such scanty evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Great to have the opinions of a "neontologist"! FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't yet. LittleJerry (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Issues should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Ian Rose: I am happy with sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and minor comments from Jim
Very comprehensive and meets the FAC criteria. I may have missed links or glosses for the rare or technical rugose, parietosquamosal and holotype, please check Jimfbleak (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I linked holotype. The others have no articles (one just a disambiguation page). LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and nice to see you back! I moved the link for holotype up to first occurrence. I think I forgot it because lectotype was already linked... FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2016 (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/Stegoceras/archive1&oldid=1074859532"