WP:PALEOAW

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome to the Article workshop of the WikiProject Palaeontology, a place for collaborative article editing. Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality can be listed here – to obtain feedback for your latest work; to get help in developing an article or request copy edits; to bring an article up to B-class level or to prepare for a Good or Featured Article Nomination; to collaboratively rework our oldest good and featured articles; and more. Submissions here invite everyone to contribute with comments, edits, and/or content additions. It is expected that the nominator will act as the main author, taking the lead in developing the article and responding to comments.

This workshop is a novel concept that aims to combine the traditional formats of WP:Peer Review and WP:Collaborations. Unlike the Peer Review, we will not only list comments on this page, but edit the article directly wherever possible. Unlike collaborations, we do not vote on which article to work on together, but rely on a main author who submits the article and feels responsible for taking it forward.

The aim of the workshop is to make article work less daunting and more fun by sharing some of the workload. Articles can benefit from the combined skills of several contributors. It also invites everyone to contribute to the listed articles with quick edits or comments, or even substantial content contributions that can lead to spontaneous collaborations.

We aim to officially "approve" successfully reworked old Good and Featured Articles once they have been peer-reviewed and are without outstanding issues. In this case, the approved version and a link to the workshop discussion will be listed in the Article history section on the article's talk page, after archival of the review. Reviews should be announced in the WikiProject to gather as many comments as possible. So far, we approved 1 reworked Good Article (Dracopristis) and 1 reworked Featured Article (Thescelosaurus).

Listed articles will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time.

History

The current Article workshop has several predecessors. The Dinosaur collaboration started in 2006; a total of 29 collaborations took place, resulting in 14 "featured articles" and 7 "good articles". Its last successful collaboration was Brachiosaurus, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2018. In 2019, the Palaeontology collaboration was initiated as a supplement, focusing on less complex articles. Its only collaboration was Acamptonectes, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2021. The Paleo Peer Review was started in 2020, with a total of 43 articles receiving substantial comments, of which 6 were subsequently promoted to "good article" status and 3 to "featured article" status. The Article workshop itself was launched in October 2024 as a direct continuation of the Palaeo Peer Review in a revamped format.

Click here to submit an article

Submissions

Triassic-Jurassic extinction event

I recently unsuccessfully nominated Triassic-Jurassic extinction event for the Featured List. A number of those who identified problems with the article are in this group, and I'm wondering if we can get its flaws resolved and renominate it once the two-week wait period between nominations expires. The consensus seemed to be that the article was rich in information and that the main problem was the lack of readability for a general reader, as while I am very good at adding information, my prose is very technical and not the most engaging, and I'm wondering if I can get some assistance from other WikiProject Palaeontology editors in making it more readable for an average Joe. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Will have a detailed look when I got the time, but in general I think this is what we need:

a background section. This should very briefly introduce mass extinctions, say how large this one was compared to the others etc. Then, I would say briefly something about the fauna/flora and events preceeding this mass extinction (PT extonction, Carnian Palluvial episode etc.). It should be especially easy to read and understand.

technical language: introduce/explain difficult terms and concepts at first mention, or replace with plainer wording where you don't loose pecision.

A FAC also need to be very comprehensive. I don't see anything about research history? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a fairly barebones paragraph-long section on the research history of the TJME (that can be built on easily), discussing the ancient, dogmatic, uniformitarian theories about gradual climate change and sea level fall being the culprit, to talking about the asteroid impact craze of the 1980s and 1990s when the Cretaceous-Palaeogene extinction event was found to be caused by the Chicxulub impact and everybody was going around attributing every mass extinction to some impact event, to the development of the modern day consensus that the TJME was caused by the activity of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good content-wise, but this new section, too, needs to be made more accessible to the general public. Let me know if you need further help with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd appreciate if someone with better prose could help with altering the wording to be more readable for the general public. When authoring Wikipedia article, I'm already trying to write at a level lower than what I typically write at in any academic or professional writing I do, and my baseline knowledge is so far from the general public's that I'm not sure how to convey information accessibly; whenever I'm at public outreach events for palaeontology and get asked something, I regularly end up having to explain something twice or thrice even though the first explanation was already "dumbed down" to what I thought was a very basic level. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the lead and the history section accordingly. Will try do some more when time allows. Some more things I noted:

We should not provide citations in the lead (exceptions may apply), since everything is supposed to be cited in the main body. It's like the abstract of a paper, where we also don't have citations.
Plants, crocodylomorphs, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals were left largely untouched,[4][5][6] allowing the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodylomorphs to become the dominant land animals for the next 135 million years. – This is repetitive and inaccurate (Crocodylomorphs were not really the dominant land animals, for example). Can we remove this?
The lead only says something about the extinction of archosauromorphs but nothing about the marine roam, for example, so this seems quite incomplete. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding taking it straight back to FAC in two weeks, I'd recommend instead taking it through WP:GAN first, even most experienced FAC nominators continue doing that, it's the safest step towards FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

"The earliest research on the TJME was conducted in the mid-20th century" I mean surely someone must have noticed a major extinction event between the Triassic and Jurassic way earlier when the terms Triassic and Jurassic were coined? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"were dismissed as catastrophism" link catastrophism and it might make more sense to the reader if you mention catastrophism's association with young Earth creationism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"gradual environmental changes were favoured as the cause of the extinction" any specific environmental changes anyone suggested? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"caused by a bolide impact" would meteor not work here instead? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The theory that the TJME was caused by massive volcanism" it wasn't because someone dated the formation of the CAMP to around the time of the TJME? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is Modern evolutionary fauna? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe include a picture of the Triassic timescale with how often you reference it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Lilliput effect affected megalodontid bivalves, whereas file shell bivalves experienced the Brobdingnag effect, the reverse of the Lilliput effect" You could just say that they shrank or grew and in parentheses say the actual term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"weathering of the CAMP's aerially extensive" why specify from the air? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some clades recovered more slowly than others, however, as exemplified by corals and their disappearance in the early Hettangian" you already said this with the Hettangian coral gap Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parahelicoprion

I've worked on this article for the last month(ish) or so and have gotten it into what I consider a decent state, thanks to some help from a few other editors. If anyone would be willing to provide a content assessment/further feedback it would be appreciated, I'm trying to get this one up to B-class. Not promoting to GA until I get access to/English translations of a few extremely obscure sources, but for the time being this is about as far as I think I can go content-wise. I'm especially looking for fluent/intermediate Russian speakers, since most of the relevant sources are in Russian and I've had to rely on a combination of machine translation and very unenthused acquaintances to figure anything out. Gasmasque (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very good. I did copy edits of the entire article [1]; as always, feel free to revert anything you do not like.
The characteristics of this whorl are unique to fishes of the order Eugeneodontida, – this somehow implies that taxa outside Eugeneodontida also have whorls, is this the case?
Later sources have reported a holotype specimen spanning 25 cm (10 in) across and consisting of six tooth crowns,[9][13][24] based on a reconstructed cast of the material photographed by ichthyologist Svend Erik Bendix-Almgreen during the 1970s – should say "incorrectly reported", because a reconstructed cast is never a holotype, right?
I probably messed this up in my copy edit, but you use both "Denticles" and "serrations"; I guess you use "serrations" when you talk about them collectively?
The Artinskian deposits of Krasnoufimsk, or the Arta Beds – In the lead, you call them "Artinskian Beds"
We usually have the section on size (here "Estimated length") in the "Description" section. Consider moving it up, because at the moment, size is mentioned earlier but the reader does not know at this point that the genus was particularly large, this information comes a bit late.
"... might have been over 30 meters (100 ft) in lengths - perhaps the largest fish of all time", – just checking, does the original quote indeed include the conversion to feet, has the typo "lenghts", and does not use a proper ndash?
a claim made based on extrapolating size from the preserved section of the whorl. – I am not sure this adds anything; of course the estimate is based on preserved fossils, I don't think this needs to be mentioned?
authors Dagmar Merino-Rodo and Phillipe Janvier – why "authors" instead of "paleontologists"? Does this mean they are non-academics (and even if, we should still call them paleontologists if they publish academic papers).
"... unless it (Parahelicoprion) was an animal with a gigantic head or outlandishly oversized teeth, it had to have been a monster, at least 100 feet long and maybe more." – in case you added "(Parahelicoprion)" to this quote yourself (?), it needs to be in square brackets instead to indicate this.
Physonemus grandis? (Moore) – In the taxonbox; do we have a year to add here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this!
- Several other groups of extinct fish, including Onychodus, some acanthodians and the iniopterygians also had tooth whorls, although these were often "parasyphyseal" and paired and were unrelated to those of eugeneodonts
- I agree incorrectly would be right here, both Zangerl's 1981 handbook and the description of P. mariosuarezi make no note of the fact that the material is a cast, despite Bendix-Almgreen saying so and them attributing the figure to being drawn from his photograph. Side note, either this exact specimen or another model of it is/was recently on display at the Moscow Paleontological Museum, and I've already tagged the talk page asking any Russian editors if they could photograph it or its label. Said label may have information that clears up when and why this reconstructed cast was made
- Serrations is the term used for the large number of curved indentations in clerci, and denticles is used for the three at the base of the "wing" on mariosuarezi. Since the two structures are homologous I see no issue with the same term being used for both
- Arta Beds seems to be a mostly historic term now that more specific formations are defined, although the 2010 Handbook of Paleoichthyology continues to list P. clerci as originating from the "Arta Beds". I'll update the lead, but Arta in this case is meant to be synonymous with Artinskian-aged. The description of Artiodus from the Divya Formation notes P. clerci as being from its same formation, so it may be worth changing the lead to say Divya Formation. I'm keeping it as "Arta Beds" for now, but do let me know what you think
- If I'm being quite honest the "estimated length" section was a bit of an afterthought. I was genuinely shocked when I found out there were actual (reputable, may I add) sources saying such nonsense, which I had previously assumed was relegated to mid-2010s internet blogs and lying Wiki editors. I can move the section to "Description", which would be in accordance with the similar situation regarding Walking with Dinosaur's Liopleurodon "estimate". I'm still giving it its own section and not integrating it into the section about known material, if that's alright, since I worry of giving undue weight
- The passage in Perrine's book does indeed have strange grammar, misspell "length", and state 100 ft as equivalent to 30 m. It is not, however, a directly quote from Lund (only something he "calculated") as I had written before, and I've changed the text to accommodate. That misattribution is purely a mistake on my part
- They are paleontologists, I can change that
- Can change to square brackets. This quote is real by the way, along with a similar passage about Edestus giganteus. Lund was cited as one of the primary scientific advisors for this book, too, although not explicitly for the Parahelicoprion line
- Neither Baird nor Karpinsky (nor Obruchev's 1952 summary of the Edestidae) provide the date for Physonemus grandis, although Baird does specify it was described by Moore. I can try to track down mention of this species, although there are many, many species of Physonemus and some of these papers are not available online, so no promises I'll have any luck
Again, appreciate the review, and can make the requested changes. I'm in agreement with your copyedits, the text definitely flows better now! Gasmasque (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did successfully find the authority for Xystracanthus (Physonemus) grandis (Moore, 1929) and have updated the text to accommodate. I've also found a full copy of Karpinsky's 1924 description and will be uploading the figures and photos from that onto Commons. Expect the page to see some pretty significant revisions now that I've gotten ahold of a couple more papers! Gasmasque (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rating tool already gives the article a B, so I've updated it. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a good amount of additional information and corrected some of the weird misspeaking/mistakes that came about from screwy translations, and I would really appreciate if anyone fluent in French or Russian could check over the cited sources to look for further misinterpretation. The 1916, 1922, and 1924 descriptions are all in Russian, as is this 1926 source detailing the discovery of a segment of the tooth whorl. This article focusing on comparisons with the genus and Agassizodus/Campodus is in French, and in particular I wanted to ask @Amirani1746 for assistance fact-checking the content sourced from it. I've primarily had to rely on machine translation software (which is infamously of pretty dubious quality) for the Russian sources, unfortunately I do not know any fluent speakers interested in helping with the project. All of these publications are quite short, and as far as I can tell several of them re-iterate a lot of the exact same points. Again, huge thanks if anyone is able to help me out with this! Gasmasque (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasmasque As French speaker, I'm intersted to translate the french source ! But above all, i need to acess it. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the interest! If the HathiTrust link decides not to work, I can send the paper via Google Drive as well. It's public domain in both the U.S. and E.U., so I've also uploaded the relevant figures to Commons. Gasmasque (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it seems Hathi may limit access to all works published after the 1890's outside of the U.S. Here's a link to the Google Drive Gasmasque (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the supplemental material of "Cautionary tales on the use of proxies to estimate body size and form of extinct animals" says However, there is no guarantee the tooth whorl was helical, and indeed given the proposed similarities between Sarcoprion and Parahelicoprion (Merino-Rodo & Janvier, 1986) a shorter, more Sarcoprion tooth whorl seems more likely. If a Sarcoprion-like arrangement were inferred, Parahelicoprion likely reached similar sizes to Helicoprion (~7 m?). I think you can be a bit less cagey and more specific about this size estimate in the relevant section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section needs a bit of a rewrite in accordance with the supplementary material, I agree I may be a bit overly cautious to provide a specific number. I'll also adjust the section on the proposed whorl shape to lend more support to the idea that it possessed a short whorl as well. Gasmasque (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yixian Formation

I floated the idea of using the article workshop to improve WP:PAL's coverage of geological formations (which are mostly lacking with only a few exceptions), and several people said they'd be interested in participating. I figured the Yixian Formation would be a good one to start with because most of the literature on it is relatively recent (so finding sources shouldn't be too difficult), it's among the most important Mesozoic deposits for the study of small animals (something generally lacking coverage on WP), and there's tons of candidate images for the article. I don't have any specific plans to bring it to GA or FA, but that could always change. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any other geological formation articles already at GA or FA? That way we have a rough framework to base the work on this one off of. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But it would be an opportunity to develop a general structure that we all agree on. Maybe that's the first we should do, and then decide who would do what section? I may start with a proposal of a general outline that could fit most formation articles (but has to be adapted for the Yixian Formation):

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

3) Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (structural geology, volcanism etc.)

4) Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. Might be better to include in "Stratigraphy" in some cases where this has to be discussed for many members separately.

5) Fossil content, including the most important individual sites. Only general information; move fossil taxa to separate spin-off list.

6) Natural resources / mining (if any)

7) Geoconservation (where applicable)

8) Research history

Of course, this is far not ideal yet, so I am looking forward to seeing your ideas/versions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea is pretty solid. Taking from your outline, it might be possible to streamline it into 5 main sections as follows:

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (volcanism etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. (structural geology, etc.?)

3) Fossil content + important sites

4) Human use / natural resources

5) Geoconservation

Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm only a novice when it comes to geology proper. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me add the research history back again (we cannot do without that); move "Structural geology" to "Geologic history", and other minor tweaks:

1) Geologic history (background info, general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, type locality, where the formation outcropps today)

Possibly other geological aspects (volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate.

3) Fossil content + important sites

4) Economic geology / Human uses

5) Research history

Geoconservation / Cultural aspects (only where relevant)

We might want to throw this to the bin once we actually work on such an article. But its a start. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think its worth including the paleoclimate and depositional environment in its own section because that's likely to be something of interest to many readers. It could at least be its own subheader under "Geologic history" or "Stratigraphy". Fortunately, the Yixian Formation already has a separate page for the paleobiota, so we will only need to write a general coverage of that. I think the sections you proposed are just fine, although I think "research history" should be the first section in the article body (as is the case for most/all pages for fossil taxa). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes, we can maybe group Research history, etymology, type locality, and definition together, as first section? I wonder if we need a separate section on geography. I mean modern geography, i.e., where the formation is outcropping today (which can be quite complex), and maybe its relevance to geomorphology, natural hazzards or whatever has to be covered. That doesn't really fit under "Geologic history". Maybe (but just maybe) we should have "Geography" as major section and "Economic geology" (and cultural aspects) as subsections of it. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think grouping all those together is probably the best move. Etymology and type locality are all tied to research history very closely. We can re-examine the question of a separate section for geography once the bulk of the article is written because it will become clear by then whether or not it's a substantial enough matter to warrant a dedicated section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me just update it though, for the record:

1) Research history (also including etymology, type locality, and definition)

2) Geologic history (background info, broader geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition including volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

3) Stratigraphy and sedimentology (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

Subsections on dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate

4) Fossil content + important sites

5) Geography (distribution, and where applicable, subsections on economic geology, geoconservation, and cultural aspects) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we generally agree on the overall structure of the article, so its probably worth splitting up the workload. I personally would prefer to do the stratigraphy section. I can also assist with research history or geologic history after that (I assume there will be significant overlap in the sources). Rather than start from scratch, the pages for Jehol biota, Psittacosaurus, and Paleobiota of the Yixian Formation have a lot more references already consolidated. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick what is left over. First need to finish that dinosaur above before I have the capacity to pick anything, though … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psittacosaurus? If so, ouch, good luck with that one. I'll be on call for copyediting and a looksover once it nears completion, too busy to contribute writing. The Morrison Man (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Thescelosaurus, our other collaboration above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some licensed images to upload that I'll keep here in case anyone sees fit to use them.

Peking Man

Back from another long hiatus wanting to wrap up some old projects; I'm trying to get this to FA. Most reviewers would come from this wikiproject anyways, so since we now have this new peer review system, I guess I'll put it here first as I'm getting back into the swing of things Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Welcome back! I will have a look at this soon. For a start, does the article need to be updated? There are some newer papers that are not incorporated, like [2] and [3], you might want to check for additional ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fire one and went through google scholar for erectus pekinensis and Zhoukoudian since 2020. I don't have access to Geological Society Publications, but since it's another summarization of Zhoukoudian excavation, I wouldn't think it'd add any new information Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I make some copy edits as I go; feel free to revert if needed.
Chibanian – In the box you say "Middle Pleitocene", should be consistent. Also, for the lead, I would give the range in years too.

Changed to Middle Pleistocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1960, the Cenozoic Research Laboratory was converted into an independent organisation as the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was headed by Pei, Jia, and Chinese palaeoanthropologist Yang Zhongjian. – Lacks context. What's the link to Peking Man? Was the Cenozoic Research Laboratory established because of Peking Man? Why are the individuals relevant for this article?

added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and 14 other H. erectus sites have since been discovered across the country as of 2016 in the Yuanmou, Tiandong, Jianshi, Yunxian, Lantian, Luonan, Yiyuan, Nanzhao, Nanjing, Hexian, and Dongzhi counties.[6] – I would not mention all these counties here; these are not Peking Men anyways, right?

The way the subspecies thing is handled with H. erectus is kinda weird, they're all sort of grouped as "Chinese H. erectus" and are by and large considered to be more closely allied with each other than other H. erectus populations, but some of them have historically been given some subspecies distinction which are variably still recognized today. It's definitely relevant to list them somewhere Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

most notably soldier Lai Jinliang – also lacks context, this is not really helpful without further elaboration (why is a soldier notable here? Who is he? What did he do to be the "most notable" peer?). I suggest to delete this.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you name "Homo erectus pekinensis" only in the first sentence in the lead, but not in the main article. When, and by whom, was the species classified as a subspecies as H. erectus?

I mean the article title isn't the subspecies name so I'm preferentially using Peking Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to make the table collapsed per default.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the systematics discussion, I can't find anything on the relations of Peking Man with other H. erectus from China. There are multiple other H. erectus localities in China, but only the cave near Beijing had this particular subspecies? Are the other H. erectus finds attributed to other subspecies? How do they differ? Anything known about their interrelations? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese H. erectus are grouped together (sometimes as "classic" H. erectus) but what exactly that means is mostly defined by the Peking Man as the population with the most fossil material. The other ones are mostly skull fragments (not the most diagnostic) and teeth which have extremely distinct shovelling which is brought up in the Mouth section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a section about relationships of Peking Man in the "Classification" section? All the information given there seem to be historic, but the current viewpoints don't become quite clear. This could mention the other H. erectus from China, and why it is difficult to compare them with Peking Man. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I could say that the Yuanmou and Lantian specimens look more ancient (which makes sense since they're older) and clarify that Peking Man probably didn't descend from Java Man? What specific kinds of relationships were you thinking about? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph at the end of the "Out of Africa" theory section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a step in the right direction. But I really think you should also cover the basics about Chinese H. erectus, properly introduce Nanjing Man for example. What other H. erectus material is there in China? What kind of material is it (undiagnostic at subspecies level it seems)? Any other subspecies in China? Is Nanjing Man another subspecies, and how is it related to Peking Man (did it live earlier, later? Common ancestry?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing Man, Yuanmou Man, Lantian Man, and Hexian Man all at some point got subspecific distinction but no one really uses subspecies names in general. There at one point was a shift to say there's only 1 subspecies in all of China, but no one specifically uses the name H. e. pekinensis outside of Zhoukoudian. I added a little more but I think the big problem with this question is the whole subspecies distinction is often ignored in general with how poorly defined subspecies even is. I could include dates on the list of all the Chinese erectus sites if that helps with context, or the cladogram from Homo erectus#Phylogeny? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand that the sources are unclear, but I wonder how most recent, reputably published papers refer to Peking Man – as a subspecies, a population, or just to the locality? Do they use the name Homo erectus pekinensis or not? If they don't, maybe it would be more prudent to remove the subspecies name from the first sentence of the lead and have a separate sentence saying that it has often been regarded as a distinct subspecies? Another point: I also found the name "Homo pekinensis" (amongst others, in Anton and Middleton 2023, which is quite recent), which is not mentioned in the article at all? My feeling still is that the taxonomy coverage is still a bit unclear and unsatisfactory, but I don't know the sources of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That study is already cited in the article, but it wasn't arguing that Peking Man is a unique species, but that if someone were to in the future argue that Peking Man (and maybe other Chinese H. erectus) is sufficiently distinct enough if we were to find more complete fossil remains somewhere, then the species name would be H. pekinensis per priority. I most often see just "Zhoukoudian" instead of "Peking" or "pekinensis", which is not to say they absolutely do not support the subspecies distinction, more so the study doesn't want to focus on terminology as much Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I think that the taxon "H. pekinensis" should be covered in this article, there are many papers that mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added a sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cladogram could be helpful if added. But note that it is a specimen-based analysis, not a taxon-based analysis. Therefore, the terminal node is one particular skull, not the taxon. The Homo erectus article implies that this study considers "Peking Man" as a taxon but in fact they don't. As long as Wikipedia says that "Peking Man is a subspecies", I don't think that the name "Peking Man" should appear in that cladogram because it's simply not what the source says. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the study doesn't really speak on the subspecies of H. erectus since it focuses more on organizing "late archaic Homo" in East Asia, so I wouldn't say it's specifically arguing against taxon distinction for anything inside the "H. erectus group" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I really begin to think that this article should not be about the subspecies, but about the fossils from Zhoukoudian. If papers do not use the subspecies name, it is a clear sign that the taxon is not widely accepted, so we should not present it here as fact. Furthermore, the sources (and the article itself) are mostly about the fossils from Zhoukoudian, not about the subspecies, which explains why taxonomic coverage is so poor in both. The German Wikipedia too introduces Peking Man as the name given to fossils from Zhoukoudian, not declaring it a subspecies (and I know, and highly value, the author of that German WP article, it is someone who really knows what he is doing). Consequently, this would mean that the article should not have a taxon box. I hope we will get some opinions from others on this point too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1921, in the Fangshan District, 47 kilometres (29 miles) southwest of Beijing (then referred to in the West as Peking), Swedish archaeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson was teaching Austrian palaeontologist Otto Zdansky and American archaeologist Walter Granger on the Zhoukoudian Site. At the Chi Ku Shan ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, they were advised by local quarrymen to dig at the nearby Longgushan ("Dragon Bone Hill") locality. – I read several times but still don't know what was going on. Can this be reworded more clearly? What is this ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, apparently a different site? Why did the Swedish archaeologist "teach" about the site before the first tooth was discovered? That all doesn't make sense.

added some more details Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which Canadian palaeoanthropologist Davidson Black made the holotype of a new taxon, Sinanthropus pekinensis. – Taxonbox lists two authors, not only Black.

Black did this in a 1927 publication with him listed as the only author, but in naming the species he lists the authority as himself and Zdansky so I wasn't sure what to do, but I added Zdansky Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1927, Black classified newly discovered human remains from the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site into a new genus and species as "Sinanthropus pekinensis". – This is a repetition of the sentence above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China and Indonesia were probably colonised by H. erectus in two different waves. A population related to Peking Man may have later been in genetic contact with Southeast Asian H. erectus, since the younger teeth at the Indonesian Sangiran site are much smaller than the older ones — more like those of Peking Man's — but tooth reduction could have happened for other reasons. – I think this absolutely lacks context, and I don't understand it. What about those two waves? To which wave does Peking Man belong? What do these waves have to do with the rest of the paragraph?

At the Sangiran site, there are some older and some younger H. erectus fossils. The older ones are morphologically more comparable to western H. erectus than to the younger Zhoukoudian Peking Man fossils, which could mean that Sangiran and Zhoukoudian were colonized in two different dispersal events out of Africa rather than there being only a single H. erectus dispersal out of Africa to the Far East. Or in other words, the older Sangiran fossils may be more closely allied with H. erectus sensu lato instead of H. erectus sensu stricto forming a single unified group (but you know if stricto did form a single group, that'd be grounds for speciation). The younger Sangiran fossils have smaller teeth more similar to Zhoukoudian so the authors say it's possible there was interbreeding going on between the populations represented by Zhoukoudian and Sangiran, unless there were environmental/cultural drivers for tooth reduction (since tooth reduction is a common trend in human evolution usually ascribed to improving cutting and food processing technology). I'm not sure what level of detail is relevant here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as "classic" H. erectus – Context here, too. What makes them "classic"? And which H. erectus are not "classic"?

It's kind of a historical thing since it's the most productive H. erectus site in the world, and the only other ancient human fossils we had at the time were Dawson's Eoanthropus (the oldest man), Dubois' Java Man (the giant gibbon), Boule's La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 and friends (a devolving dead end), and Mauer 1 (a nondescript jaw). Like this is the set of fossils that changed our understanding of what early humans were supposed to look like, and created a huge paleontological interest in the subject especially in Asia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You often use upper case when referring to bones, for example In addition to carnivore damage, Skull V bears …; Adult Mandible IV with 3P – shouldn't these be lower case?

I'm never really sure how to treat kinda famous fossils that weren't famous enough to get a fun nickname. Like we have Dmanisi skull 5 which is also referred as simply Skull 5 with caps (you know, given context) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, their reconstruction aligns more closely with other Asian H. erectus and African H. e? ergaster specimens – more closely than what? Compared to the bust mentioned earlier? Also, I think this sentence should make clear that these particular authors propose that they align more closely. "H. e? ergaster" seems to miss a dot, and is super technical; maybe just write "H. ergaster" and add a footnote stating "considered by the authors as a potential subspecies of H. erectus." or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in it's less apomorphic than Weidenreich's reconstruction, and it says "their reconstruction" so that claim is already tied to Tattersall and Sawyer, or is it not? I wasn't sure what to do with ergaster, originally I just wanted to put "African H. erectus" but I figured I should link to the article. Maybe "African H. erectus (sometimes Homo ergaster or H. erectus ergaster)" and keep using "African H. erectus" elsewhere? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work. You could alternatively place the explanation in a footnote to keep the text concise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Man lacks a true postglenoid process behind the jaw hinge, only a broad-based, triangular projection. – "Only a" does not seem to fit grammatically; also should explain what makes the process "true". For example, write "Peking Man lacks a true postglenoid process (a bony projection behind the jaw hinge); instead of being elongated, it is merely a triangular projection with a broad base". Replace "elongated" with whatever is the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think elongated is a fine word, the point is that it's a low projection Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the back of the skull, the occipital torus extends in a relatively straight line, though laterally curves downward at termination (at the sides of the head). The occipital torus can be bordered by furrows (sulci) on the top and bottom margins (for muscle attachment), and the bottom margin of the torus gradually fades. – Don't understand

There's a straight line of bone arcing across the back of the skull which bends down and fades by like the ears, and there's trenches dug out along its length on its top and bottom side where muscles attach to, the top margin just kinda suddenly ends so it's like a really noticeable and kinda wonky transition, but the bottom margin kinda blends gradually so it's not as abrupt Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace though laterally curves downward at termination (at the sides of the head) with but curves downward at the sides of the skull? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The foramen magnum (where the spine connects with the skull) appears to have been positioned near the centre like in humans – Centre of what?

Looks like I misunderstood what was meant by "occipital foramen", removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is within the range of variation for modern humans. – I thought the brain of modern humans is larger?

No, normal non-pathological human brain volume can get down to 850 cc (or that's the lowest anyone's reported so far). Most brain volume studies are done in Europe, and populations from colder climates (for whatever reason) tend to have overall higher brain volume in absolute measure both in average and range. Fun fact, brain volume was one of the things used to justify the racial superiority of Europe, but the "Eskimo" brain kinda threw a little monkey wrench into that Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encephalisation quotients (the ratio between observed to predicted brain mass for an animal of a given size, cautiously used as an indicator of intelligence) typically score from three to four for "classic" H. erectus assuming a body weight on the whereabouts of 50 kg (110 lb).[87] – This is something that could be deleted, as it is not strictly pertinent. Just for context I think it is not very helpful as it only gives another number. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(a bony ridge corresponding to the tooth root) – Not sure what "corresponding to" means here. Not just "on the tooth root", right?

It's not the root itself, it's the displaced bone caused by the cavity Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still unclear. Where is that ridge? Sounds like it would be inside the tooth socket, but I believe it is on the outer surface of the jaw? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's like a bump on the maxilla, like you know when you see a maxilla it has all the vertical ridges corresponding to all the teeth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is subnasal prognathism (the area between the nose and mouth juts out). – You could link prognathism, and it would be the upper jaw that juts out, which is part of the mouth (not inbetween nose and mouth), right? Why not just "the upper jaw juts out", which is shorter and much more precise, too? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shovelling also usually occurs in Neanderthals and less intensely in many early modern human specimens across Europe, Africa, and Asia.[92] In recent populations, the trait is triggered by the EDAR V370A allele, and seldom occurs outside East Asians and indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Americas. This allele seems to have experienced positive selection in an ancestor population (maybe one from Beringia) about 20,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), possibly because the allele also expresses a higher duct branching density in the mammary glands during the embryo stage of a pregnancy. Duct branching density scales with breast milk production and nutrition. Arctic populations, especially during the frigid LGM, may have been vitamin D deficient, which often also confers a higher duct branching density, and EDAR V370A may enhance this phenomenon. – You go off-topic here. Try to keep it focused on description. If you think that mention of this allele is critical for this article, I could be more appropriately discussed in a later section.

I'll just put it in a note, historically the trait was used as evidence of an ancestor–descendant link between Peking Man and modern East Asians. It is a pretty long note though, so maybe I should remove everything past "possibly because the allele also..." the possible selective pressures may not be too relevant here? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would remove it, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is stature discussed under "postcranium"? I think the info is difficult to find there; I would discuss it right at the beginning of the Description section.

because all those measurements assume a humanlike postcranium. I could also make it a new section, like "Dimensions" or something? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that "Size" is better as a separate section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first three paragraphs under "postcranium" appear to describe H. erectus in general, rather than Peking man? If so, I would drastically cut that down. It does not seem to provide important information that the reader might need for context. The H. erectus article is for that.

Just the first paragraph, the other two are specifically the Zhoukoudian humeri and femora Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but is it helpful to compare with modern humans? Shouldn't the anatomy be compared with H. erectus? The differences pointed out would apply to other H. erectus too, I assume? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I could go on listing random femora provisionally designated as H. erectus but in general the femur doesn't vary all that much. Like as stated in the text, the femur is not technically outside the range of variation for modern humans. Like, H. erectus seems to have had a human bauplan Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

braincase is exceptionally thickened like in other H. erectus. – its not an exception if it is like in others?

"extremely" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: In case you didn't see these. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I actually didn't see this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: Some replies above. It might not be smooth sailing at FAC, there is probably more work to do on prose, and maybe word count is already an issue, too. Maybe you should just go for it now to get more feedback. Listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests first is possibly a good idea but would take a lot of time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a recurring problem for me; I have a very unconventional way of speaking English, I've been told. I've submitted it to the Guild Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PrimalMustelid

Hi, PrimalMustelid chiming in for now. I might have further comments down the line for later. For now, we need to discuss the elephant in the room that is the taxonomy of H. erectus pekinensis. Address these following concerns, as the article does not address the taxonomic history of the taxon nearly enough:

What was the basis behind the researchers erecting the genus and species Sinanthropus pekinensis? More specifically, what differentiated the dental specimens from other species of Homo according to them?

He considered the teeth to be clearly more primitive than Neanderthals and distinct from Java Man, but the latter point would come to be disputed which is why it eventually gets subsumed under the same species. I'm not sure what to put down other than "different from Neanderthal and Java Man" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is no mention of any synonymization process of the genus and species as far as I can see. When were they synonymized with H. erectus and why? At what point was the species converted into species rank, and why is it under H. erectus? How did consensus over its taxonomy evolve over time?

added a little more of Weidenreich's ideas, but when Mayr lumped everything into H. erectus there wasn't really any pushback. It's under erectus because of priority Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that a featured article has to be comprehensive, and the taxonomy of one species of Homo isn't an exception here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a major expansion which more fully fleshes out your two points Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the role of Black could be emphasised a bit more, pointing out that finding human ancestors had been his main motive to move to China in 1919, and that he was the driving force behind the ambitious plan to deeply excavate the Zhoukoudian with a large labour contingent, which took effect after 27 March 1927.--MWAK (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note about why Black was in Beijing, and that Bohlin oversaw excavation since Black was too tied up at the Peking Medical College. Where did you get the date of 27 March? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compsognathus

Ok, so I've been told to essentially assign the next old FA or GA fossil taxon article for which the people of this WikiProject will improve. Since I suppose I can be the one to give assignments from here on out, the next dinosaur genus is Compsognathus, which was promoted to FA on the 15th of March in 2007 and obviously has not been reassessed since. Have at it I suppose. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it some years ago, adding the taphonomy section and expanding the description and discovery sections. Systematics and paleobiology still need to be done. I am happy to join-in for this one but want to finish Massospondylus first, which will take some time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massospondylus

My current work-in-progress – an old FA I did some significant work on back in 2012, with the approval of Firsfron, the original main author. My plan is to finish the job now and give it the same treatment as we did for Thescelosaurus – a full revision. Several important papers have been published on it since, so there is quite a bit to do.

I am listing it here already in case anyone has ideas or thoughts, or likes to join in for a collaboration (be welcome!). If this is not the case, I am prepared to finish the job myself, but would probably need some help on the way, especially with images, and, of course, reviews in the end to ensure FA-level quality. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jen. I recall the nice work you did more than a decade ago. I can see several updates are needed. I've been working on sauropodomorph paleontology for a couple of years, and may have some things to contribute here or elsewhere eventually. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent – I will ping you once we are done with the updates, and, if you then have time to take a look, would greatly appreciate your input and your thoughts on whether or not the revision is going into the right direction, particularly regarding length and level of detail. The FA standards have changed since this article was promoted; in particular, we are no longer supposed to completely avoid important but complicated technical details such as autapomorphies, as this may be considered an oversimplification of the topic, but of course it is hard to strike a balance. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we already talked about, I'll help with the images and otherwise provide a detailed review once it's ready. By coincidence, the Equatorial Minnesota blog (which I believe is run by a former editor) just published a post with a short summary of the taxonomic history of Maasospondylus and other "prosauropods":[4] FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently doesn't have any maps, but do you think any of these[5][6][7] could be used, Jens Lallensack? Perhaps with modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Maybe a map combined with a profile that also shows the biozones (in particular, the Massospondylus range zone). Will think about it when getting into the paleoecology section. At the moment I'm still working myself through the taxonomic history – it is quite complicated. The new part about the dubious taxa got a bit too long, so with a few more articles for some of the Nomina dubia I hope to be able to cut that down a bit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzalcoatlus

I've been working on this article on-and-off since October (partly because I was surprised it wasn't already GA/FA-standard), and I've gotten it to what I think is a solid state. It was bumped up to B-class after my last round of revisions, when it was just a C-class when I started. Will admit, I'm not entirely sure what my plan for the article is, though at the very least I do hope to push it to GA. Borophagus (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Nice! I'm on it, making edits as I go (revert anything you don't like, please). I also leave some points/questions here (more to come):

How can we make the assumption that Q. nothropi was solitary when there is only one specimen? I think this should read "Lawson speculated that Q. nothropi was solitary", to make clear it is not an uncontroversial fact.
You should decide whether you abbreviate the genus (Q. northropi) or spell it out (Quetzalcoatlus northropi) and stick to it.
He would then go on to become a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley. – Why is it relevant where he got his PhD from? Why do you pick this particular detail from his life, while you, for example, not mention that he became a paleontologist, which seems more to the point here?
Further material from the same specimen was uncovered in the form of a humerus and the first two phalanges (digit bones) of the wing. – I am confused why these are listed separately from the other remains. Have they been discovered later? If so, it's not mentioned.
Andres and Langston (2021) seems to be the main source for the article, but you only cite a single page of that work. Was that intended?
Second paragraph in "Early history" is slightly confusing, as you first introduce the discovery of Q. lawsoni, then go back to Q. northropi, and then state that "a detailed description was underway" without making clear if that is referring to both species or only one of them. Also, the reader is left wondering what happened to the much more complete Q. lawsoni specimens – they were discovered, yet the following text is only about the very fragmentary Q. northropi. That could possibly be better explained. Did you had a look at Wittons 2013 book "Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy"? I don't have it at hand at the moment but I remember that he was discussing why Q. sp was left undescribed for so long. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made some of the more minor changes now (missing wording, clarity, abbreviations, etc; will have to go back to it tomorrow, as my tablet is appalling for mobile editing). Many of the errors you've pointed out are leftovers from older edits, and I'm honestly not entirely sure how I missed them. I have Witton's book, but for some reason it never occurred to me to actually look at it. Will definitely go over the rest as soon as I'm able. Borophagus (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you did not yet include Brown et al. 2021? [8] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Big oversight on my part — I consistently manage to forget it exists. I'll include some information from it in the morning. Borophagus (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of estimates published since the 2000s have been substantially higher, around 200–250 kg – that's not really higher than the "30–440 kg" though?

Done.

from the eight specimens of Q. lawsoni that preserve skull elements – The "Discovery" section only mentions three Q. lawsoni specimens, and has nothing about these apparently later discoveries.

Done.

and one with a more semicircular sagittal crest and a shorter sagittal crest. – please double-check here

Done.

the beak, formed from the fusion of the dentaries – but that's the lower beak only?

Changed. I removed that detail as I couldn't find an equivalent for the upper jaw (though I'll reinstate it if I can).

so it is not clear how it ended – I think this is too unspecific; is it about the shape of the tip?

Indeed. Changed the wording.

a slight cavity – what does that mean? Did you mean "slight depression"?

The paper was a bit vaguer than I would have liked. Reworded it (per the functional morphology paper) and I think it makes more sense now.

was a small crest – do we really know it was small? In the skull reco it looks giant.

Changed.

Terrestrial locomotion in Quetzalcoatlus likely involved a pacing gait, with the forelimb on one side of the body moving forwards (to avoid collision with the hindlimbs), followed by the hindlimbs, and vice versa on the opposite side. – This is not really comprehensible. I should be able to help with that, will take a look tomorrow.

I've attempted to clarify it, but still unsure of how much it makes sense.

No information on how to distinguish this genus from other azhdarchids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of diagnostic features for now. Borophagus (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes

In The Palaeoartist's Handbook, Witton self-critiques many aspects of his terrestrial stalking image as being inaccurate. If there's a better image, I'd use it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it is in itself of historical importance to include, as it was for years the illustration of the terrestrial stalker hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be moved to the history section or something, with an appropriate caption (though I'm not sure if a source for it being influential would available or not) and then a more up to date image could be placed in the actual section on its feeding strategies. It's definitely an important piece of palaeoart, but it probably shouldn't still be the posterboy today. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to find such a source, so I opted to move it and add a disclaimer noting its inaccuracy. As things stand, I imagine it sticks out like a sore thumb, so I'll have to sort that out (along with finding an alternative image). Borophagus (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't state anywhere in the article that the terrestrial stalking hypothesis is now considered to be inaccurate, though? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I meant that the image is inaccurate, not the actual hypothesis (working on a replacement image that depicts it at the moment, so I certainly don't mean to imply that it's invalid). Borophagus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there has been little pushback against the hypothesis, a summary here:[9] As Darren Naish says about the image: "this life reconstruction of a foraging Quetzalcoatlus group accompanied Witton & Naish (2008). It’s a very dated image today and Mark probably won’t enjoy the fact that I’m sharing it (sorry Mark). But it’s significant in the story told here, since it was widely shared in news articles reporting our 2008 conclusions. It probably is, in fact, one of the most widely shared, most often reproduced, azhdarchid-themed images. Image: Mark Witton, from Witton & Naish (2008)." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole issue with the old terrestrial stalker image does leave me wondering about the history section as a whole. As is the initial history is covered, and the 2021 work is at least mentioned (though given it's a whole monograph with five papers collectively making up an SVP Memoir, I think more focus could be put on this as a landmark). But those two points in time aside, the Naish and Witton 2008 paper was the beginning of a big modernization in our understanding of azhdarchids as a whole, and though it's currently covered in the feeding section it feels like their part int he quetz story is surely a necessary of the research history of the taxon to note there as well. But I'm certain how well exactly you could quantify this impact and shift into actual citeable factual content instead of just the vibes I have from observing this impact ripple in real time. It's also worth noting the Memoir has a whole paper that focuses in large part on the history of discovery of Quetzalcoatlus and it doesn't appear to be used as a source at the moment; I might try and beef up the history section sometime next week if I get the time. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan on writing a bit more on the monograph at some point soon, though at the moment my main focus has been copyedits and adding (some) information from that Memoir paper, which I completely overlooked. Probably not as rigorous as it could be, as I've never really been the best at writing history sections, so if you do have the time, I'd definitely appreciate it! Not sure what the best way to discuss the importance of the terrestrial stalking model would be. I did look at the functional morphology paper, to see if I could at least find a source for it being significant, but all that really says is, "Witton and Naish wrote about that model, but Langston came up with it at some point before 1980", which doesn't help at all. Will definitely have to do some digging to figure that out. Borophagus (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I did write a lot about ideas about azhdarchid biology at the Phosphatodraco FAC, including the terrestrial stalking hypothesis, which could maybe be adapted here. I personally don't think all sorts of disparate research history should be lumped together under history, but discussed in the relevant sections. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I've just edited paleobiology section to include a lot of the information from the Phosphatodraco article, though I'll have to work at making it flow better (as there's now a tiny paragraph in the middle talking about the two species' differing niches). Borophagus (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

I've started working on expanding the history section myself, hopefully that's not a bother. Started with expanding the coverage of the initial discovery. I'm imagining a following paragraph about Lawon's initial description and naming, and then another one or two where I swing back around to the additional excavations at Big Bend and the Q. lawsoni stuff. Then the subsequent research and eventual monograph can probably be a separate subsection. Hope to chip away at it over the next week or so. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very comprehensive now at least! I did a copy edit to the whole history section, and hope I didn't mess it up. I wonder if the paragraph on the memoir is way too detailed; it might have to be trimmed down considerably before bringing it to FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, though I added back in one sentence I considered a considerable loss of important information. As far as I the Memoir paragraph goes, I can't say whether or not I'll have trouble at FAC, but I would defend it is as justified. The publication is an absolute landmark in the history of taxon and I think properly capturing the breadth and significance of the project is worthwhile. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you just added back-in is included twice. You should delete one of them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image suggestions

I'll do image suggestions/edits for now until the article is ready for review. If the DBogdanov restorations has inaccuracies, I can try to fix them (already gave it some modifications). FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Witton's newer skeletal[10] should be used either as part of this image, or cropped out as its own (it probably has more accurate proportions and pose). Then it may also be more appropriate for taxobox image. Headden's is still good to show known material either way.
This comparison of neck vertebrae would seem relevant under postcranium:[11]
Is this a better photo of a mount?[12]
This photo of supposed Moroccan material would make sense under "Reclassified or indeterminate fossils":[13]

Dunkleosteus77

In the Size section, it only talks about wingspan. When it's on all-fours on the ground, how tall was it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Haven't been able to find any shoulder-height estimates for Q. lawsoni in the literature, but I've included figures for Q. northropi. Will keep looking, though. Borophagus (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Renaissance

This is maybe testing at what the boundaries of the intended use for this page is, but I noticed that this article on such an essential historical topic for palaeontology is tragically simplistic and has not changed to a notable degree in nearly 20 years. As much as I do tend to enjoy the historical aspects of dinosaur articles the most, I just don't see myself putting the time towards a big topic like this anytime soon, so I figured I might try throwing it out on this page and seeing if the spotlight attracts anybody who would be more up to the task. If not I understand though - I am putting out an open request for something I'm not willing to take on so I can't exactly expect others to do so. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for this reason we say in the instructions that "It is expected that the nominator will act as the main author". We already experienced that in the old Dinosaur collaborations, where we voted for an article we would work on: people are usually not motivated to work on articles that were assigned to them. Compsognathus above might be another sad example of this, at least so far. There are just too many poor articles to choose from … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I figured it would at least be worthwhile to bring attention to it since I was completely unaware of the state of the article and figure others might be too, but feel free to archive this if it's not considered appropriate for this page. Maybe it would've been better to post on the WikiProject main talk page or something. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not hurt to post it here, for sure. Maybe we could even create an "Open tasks" section in the WikiProject with a diverse selection of articles that really, really need attention, to give some inspiration especially for newbies, maybe each with a brief instruction how it could be improved. Maybe that could include one-sentence stubs as well as broader articles like this one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be something to look into, though I think maybe it's best to wait and see how this page pans out before trying to expand WikiProject organization further. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this idea a great deal. It would de-clutter the article workshop itself, which could be reserved for projects that several people are heavily invested in. The article workshop could serve more of a "polishing the details" function whereas broad page expansion could be relegated to the "Open tasks" section. I think clarifying that purpose for the article workshop would streamline the work that is done on here so open topics don't get stale for lack of interest. Just my two cents though. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out we already have such a thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Articles_needed_or_needing_improvements. Obviously that needs update and cleanup … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely something I would be interested in working on in the future. General topics like this are generally difficult to source in my experience (when compared with technical descriptions of fossils and taxonomy), so maybe having an open "citation bank" like was done for the nomination of Thescelosaurus above. A big barrier to entry for these big picture topics (at least for me personally) is the difficulty of gathering sources. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail about tracks in Dilophosaurus?

I recently added a bit from the new Vertebrate Ichnology book to the ichnology section of the Dilophosaurus article, but then realised that it goes into pretty extreme detail about various back-and forth discussions in the literature and so on, whereas it should probably be a broader summary, since the tracks involved are only tentatively attributed to Dilophosaurus simply because it was one of the largest known theropods of the time. Discussion of possible tracks is an important part of the literature about Dilophosaurus, so such a section should be there either way, but since it's already a very long article (it was much expanded post-FAC because of the publication of its re-description), I'd like to ask what people think about that section and how it could be dealt with. It would also be a shame to completely lose some of the information that could maybe be moved to articles like Eubrontes instead. It's of course also possible that some think the current text is appropriate as is. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 11333 words in the main body; most will argue that's too long. Regarding the tracks, I agree – "a theropod like Dilophosaurus" does not mean "probably Dilophosaurus itself". My suggestions:

Reduce the "is Eubrontes a theropod?" discussion to just two sentences. It is really not pertinent to this article. The content should be moved to Eubrontes, I believe. Also note that Jim Farlow has done a lot of work on this question, including a whole book [14] and a comprehensive paper [15], none of which is even mentioned in the article.
I would remove the 2005 conference abstract about the feather impressions. I think that citing conference abstracts is fine for relatively uncontroversial statements, but for something like this I think we give undue weight to a form of publication that is mostly not considered/cited in academics anyways.
I would also considerably reduce the discussion on the crouching trace (again, two-three sentences max in my opinion). The info could be moved to St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site, which is the article on the tracksite. Note here that the authors used Dilophosaurus as model, but explicitly excluded the possibility that Dilophosaurus itself could have made them because the tracks are Hettangian in age. That should be made clear I think.
The description of the "chicken yard hodge-podge" tracksite of Welles does not belong here either I think, at least not that detailed, as it is specific for a particular site without broader implications. We could either create an article on Dilophosauripus and move it there (the ichnogenus is still listed as "valid" in the 2025 book), or create an article on the tracksite. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably recommend summarizing it (along with removals per Jens) and moving the full content to appropriate articles. I think it's relevant that it's connected directly or as a model to many trackways and worth emphasizing this with a section, but this doesn't need to be a comprehensive coverage of each subtopic. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both, I'll go for cutting down and moving to specific articles. On a related note, I also since expanded the cultural significance section a good deal with stuff related to tracks and other things, which may have the same issues, if you have any thoughts on that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeosaurus

I'm going to take on this one to prevent myself from burning out going through the Years in paleontology pages. Compiling a list of citations. Feel free to add any I miss, I'll be sure to include all those below in some capacity.

Bibliography

Lambe, L.M. (1902). "New genera and species from the Belly River Series (Mid-Cretaceous)". Geological Survey of Canada. Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology. Part II. On Vertebrata of the Mid-Cretaceous of the North west Territory. 3 (2): 25–81.
Osborn, H.F. (1902). "Distinctive characters of the Mid-Cretaceous fauna". Geological Survey of Canada. Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology. Part II. On Vertebrata of the Mid-Cretaceous of the North west Territory. 3 (2): 5–21.
Lambe, L.M. (1914). "On a new genus and species of carnivorous dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, with a description of the skull of Stephanosaurus marginatus from the same horizon". The Ottawa Naturalist. 28 (1): 13–20.
Parks, W.A. (1923). "Corythosaurus intermedius, a new species of trachodont dinosaur". University of Toronto. Geological Studies. 15: 5–57.
Matthew, W.D. (1920). "Canadian Dinosaurs". Natural History. 20: 536–544.
Gilmore, C.W. (1924). "On the genus Stephanosaurus, with a description of the type specimen of Lambeosaurus lambei Parks". National Museum of Canada Bulletin. Geological Series. 38 (43): 29–48.
Parks, W.A. (1931). "A new genus and two new species of trachodont dinosaurs from the Belly River Formation of Alberta". University of Toronto. Geological Studies. 31: 1–11.
Sternberg, C.M. (1935). "Hooded Hadrosaurs of the Belly River Series of the Upper Cretaceous". National Museum of Canada Bulletin. Geological Series. 77 (52): 1–38.
Lull, R.S.; Wright, N.E. (1942). "Hadrosaurian Dinosaurs of North America". Geological Society of America Special Papers. 40: 1–272. doi:10.1130/SPE40-p1.
Ostrom, J.H. (1964). "The systematic position of Hadrosaurus (Ceratops) paucidens Marsh". Journal of Paleontology. 38 (1): 130–134. JSTOR 1301503.
Rozhdestvensky, A.K. (1968). "Гадрозавры Казахстана" [Hadrosaurs of Kazakhstan]. In Tatarinov, L.P. (ed.). Верхнепалеозойские и мезозойские земноводные и пресмыкающиеся СССР [Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles of the USSR] (in Russian). Академии наук СССР. pp. 97–141.
Dodson, P. (1975). "Taxonomic implications of relative growth in lambeosaurine hadrosaurs". Systematic Zoology. 24 (1): 37–54. doi:10.2307/2412696.
Hopson, J.A. (1975). "The evolution of cranial display structures in hadrosaurian dinosaurs". Paleobiology. 1 (1): 21–43. Bibcode:1975Pbio....1...21H. doi:10.1017/S0094837300002165. JSTOR 2400327. S2CID 88689241.
Horner, J.R. (1979). "Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Bearpaw Shale (marine) of south-central Montana with a checklist of Upper Cretaceous dinosaur remains from marine sediments in North America". Journal of Paleontology. 53 (3): 566–577. JSTOR 1303998.
Horner, J.R.; Weishampel, D.B.; Forster, C.A. (2004). "Hadrosauridae". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 438–463. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
Norman, D.B.; Sues, H.-D. (2000). "Ornithopods from Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Siberia". In Benton, M.J.; Shishkin, M.A.; Unwin, D.M.; Kurochkin, E.N. (eds.). The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 462–479. ISBN 978-0-521-55476-3.
Bell, P.R.; Brink, K.S. (2013). "Kazaklambia convincens comb. nov., a primitive juvenile lambeosaurine from the Santonian of Kazakhstan". Cretaceous Research. 45: 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2013.05.003.
Glut, D.F. (1997). "Lambeosaurus". Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. McFarland & Co. pp. 525–533. ISBN 978-0-89950-917-4.
Lund, E.K.; Gates, T.A. (2006). "A historical and biogeographical examination of hadrosaurian dinosaurs". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 35: 263–276.
Morris, W.J. (1981). "A new species of hadrosaurian dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Baja California: ?Lambeosaurus laticaudus". Journal of Paleontology. 55 (2): 453–462. JSTOR 1304231.
Prieto-Márquez, A.; Chiappe, L.M.; Joshi, S.H. (2012). "The lambeosaurine dinosaur Magnapaulia laticaudus from the Late Cretaceous of Baja California, Northwestern Mexico". PLoS ONE. 7 (6): e38207. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...738207P. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038207. PMC 3373519. PMID 22719869.
Evans, D.C.; Forster, C.A.; Reisz, R.R. (2005). "The type specimen of Tetragonosaurus erectofrons (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) and the identification of juvenile lambeosaurines". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 349–366. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
Evans, D.C.; Reisz, R.R. (2007). "Anatomy and relationships of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus, a crested hadrosaurid dinosaur (Ornithischia) from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27 (2): 373–393. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[373:AAROLM]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0272-4634. S2CID 86070917.
Paul, G.S. (2024). The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 368–373. ISBN 978-0-691-23157-0.
Sullivan, R.M.; Jasinsky, S.E.; Guenther, M.; Lucas, S.G. (2009). "The first lambeosaurin (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae, Lambeosaurinae) from the Upper Cretaceous Ojo Alamo Formation (Naashoibito Member), San Juan Basin, New Mexico". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 53: 405–417.
Xing, H.; Gu, W.; Hai, S.; Yu, T.; Han, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S. (2022). "Osteological and taxonomic reassessments of Sahaliyania elunchunorum (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous Yuliangzi Formation, northeast China". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 41 (6): e2085111. doi:10.1080/02724634.2021.2085111. S2CID 250463301.
Bakker, R.T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and their Extinction. William Morrow. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-8217-2859-8.
Norman, D.B. (1985). "Hadrosaurids II". The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs: An Original and Compelling Insight into Life in the Dinosaur Kingdom. Crescent Books. pp. 122–127. ISBN 978-0-517-46890-6.
Weishampel, D.B. (1981). "Acoustic analyses of potential vocalization in lambeosaurine dinosaurs (Reptilia: Ornithischia)". Paleobiology. 7 (2): 252–261. Bibcode:1981Pbio....7..252W. doi:10.1017/S0094837300004036. JSTOR 2400478. S2CID 89109302.
Weishampel, D.B.; Barrett, P.M.; Coria, R.A.; Le Loeuff, J.; Xu, X.; Zhao, X.; Sahni, A.; Gomani, E.M.P.; Noto, C.R. (2004). "Dinosaur Distribution". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 517–606. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
Eberth, D.A. (2005). "The geology". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 54–82. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
Braman, D.R.; Koppelhus, E.B. (2005). "Campanian palynomorphs". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 101–130. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
Ryan, M.J.; Evans, D.C. (2005). "Ornithischian Dinosaurs". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 312–348. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
Storer, J.E. (1972). "A Duck-Billed Dinosaur: Lambeosaurus". Provincial Museum & Archives of Alberta. Museum and Archive Notes. 13: 1–4.

IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wow, great! I found two scripts that make it easier to rename all references (format "eberth2005") and move them all to the bottom of the article; I can do that if it helps? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that can definitely be done. What are the scripts called (for future use)? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Will write-up some documentation for these scripts at some point. Will be happy to copy-edit and/or review the article if needed; in the meantime I will try to get Massospondylus done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, if someone wants to begin some revisions or copyediting of the Discovery, Description, and Classification sections, that would be good. I don't think I have any more text to add to those areas, and they are probably the most likely to need trimming or sprucing up. I'll be continuing with the remainder soon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and give more extensive comments when I can, but the first thing stands out to me is Didanodon. The naming of the species is brought up, and then the naming of the genus, but it's never made clear why this is relevant or tied back to Lambeosaurus. My understanding is some association has been made between Didanodon and Lambeosaurus, but it's not formally considered a synonym and is indeterminate materially. So I think either we need to justify a connection to Lambeosaurus and explain it, or cut at least the part about naming the subgenus out of the article. It's also worth noting that "Didanodon" redirects to Lambeosaurus but Trachodon altidens redirects to Trachodon, which makes little sense. I believe this consistency originates with The Dinosauria making the same bizarre listing, but surely we can do something better about it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll wait until the whole thing is done before I review, so I can get an overall impression. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do some copy edits; I will start as soon as time allows. Quick comment for now: Do we really need that image that is currently under "Integument"? It is identical to the image of the same specimen further up in the article, except that the crest is cut off. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. It might be fine to just have no images for that section I don't have any clearer images of the TMP skin. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire body text is now completed I believe, all that remains is the lede but I'd rather write that last to make sure that nothing removed from or added to the body is left unnoticed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

The "Discovery and species" section is a bit difficult to follow - a lot of finds and names are thrown at the reader, some of which do never appear again. In the second paragraph, I also have trouble understanding which of the specimens are discussed. Specifically:
- and determined from the nearly complete skull of one individual that T. marginatus belonged in a new genus – this still refers to the 1913 Sternberg specimens, but apparently those are "referred" specimens, so no. So which one is the holotype of Stephanosaurus, exactly?
- As a result, Brown considered the identity of the skulls as uncertain – what "skulls"? I remember only one skull mentioned.
- The first paragraph seems to go into detail about a lot of specimens and species that are not strictly relevant for the naming of Lambeosaurus (only T. marginatus seems to be)? But in the second paragraph, you cover apparently important specimens actually belonging to Lambeosaurus (e.g., Lambe, in 1920, referred another even more perfect skull to Stephanosaurus) with barely a sentence.
- I wonder if it could help to first focus just on the specimens that were actually named Lambeosaurus, and discuss the rest separately, in sections like "Misidentified specimens" or similar. But I first need to understand the history to get an overview to be able to make any sensible suggestion.
  - The above revisions to the first section have been attempted. Its a bit problematic and hard for even me to understand. Lambe named marginatus for CMN 419. Then Lambe tried to designate CMN 361 and CMN 362 as type. Then Lambe describes CMN 351. Then Lambe describes CMN 2869. Then Parks names Lambeosaurus for CMN 351 and CMN 2869 without designating a type. Then Gilmore specifies CMN 2869 is the type, citing Lambe 1914 as preferring it even though it wasn't found until 1917. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Palaeoenvironment might have a focus issue, as it contains a lot of info that may be offtopic here (e.g., Six small lizards are known, representing five different families, with the teiids Socognathus and Glyptogenys, the xenosaurid Exostinus, the helodermatid Labrodioctes, the necrosaurid Parasaniwa, and the varanid Palaeosaniwa. No snakes are known, which, while it contrasts with the modern diversity of the group, does correspond with the rarity of the group during the Cretaceous.). I think it is good to mention the groups with some example genera, but I'm not sure we should have much more than that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical Idealist

My review is forthcoming. I want it to be extremely thorough. I did a small copy edit on the first paragraph to help improve the flow of the sentences, but I stopped there because I didn't feel comfortable doing the same to the remaining paragraphs because the exact ideas trying to be communicated was unclear to me and I didn't want to alter the meaning of any of the text. My preliminary observation is to agree with Jens above, specifically:

“A later Geological Survey expedition in 1913 resulted in American paleontologist…” - This paragraph is extremely confusing. Some of these sentences are run-on or otherwise too complex. For example, in the first sentence, its not clear what it is exactly that Lambe described. Did he describe the hadrosaur specimen, the skin impressions, or the stretch of river on which it was found?

Discovery and species

"Royal Ontatio Museum specimen 3577" - I don't see any reason to avoid the abbreviation "ROM 3577" with a link to the museum's article. This is the standard practice across most paleo articles.
"Among these 18 specimens, Sternberg found that CMN 8703, a nearly complete skeleton with skin, could be referred to Lambeosaurus, while CMN 8503, previously referred, was instead a specimen of Corythosaurus." - The number of commas in this sentence is excessive and makes the exact meaning difficult to parse. Sentences like this are better off divided into several shorter sentences such as "Among the specimens examined was CMN 8703, a nearly complete skeleton with skin impressions. Sternberg found that this specimen could be referred to Lambeosaurus. Conversely, the specimen CMN 8503, which had once been considered Lambeosaurus, was instead a specimen of Corythosaurus" or something along those lines.
"The extensive species and genera of hadrosaurs was reviewed in 1942 by American paleontologists Richard Swann Lull and Nelda E. Wright" - Its unclear what exactly these authors were reviewing and why.
Totally optional, but it may be worth adding a bulleted list or table detailing the number of taxa now considered to be junior synonyms of Lambeosaurus, when they were named, and what they are currently considered to be. The text does a good job of explaining the history, but if someone wanted to know the history of a particular taxon (say P. praeceps), it would be very difficult to parse.
The word "cheneosaurs" is used twice in the article. That word is never defined. Is it used in the literature? Because if not, I would recommend using a more specific word to refer to these specimens.
"As well as material from Baja California assigned to the new species..." - This clause is unnecessary. It repeats info from the previous sentence, and does not specifically relate to the rest of the sentence.
"Lambeosaurus was considered to include L. lambei, L. magnicristatus, and ?L. laticaudus..." - After this, the sentence immediately lists a bunch of junior synonyms. I think its important for reading clarity to specifically state that the former three are the only species considered valid by the 1990 review by Weishampel and Horner.
The sentence beginning, "The type, CMN 8705, was originally..." contains a redundant clause. It contains both "...but prior to being named..." and "...before it was named by Sternberg." One of these should be removed.
"The suggestion of L. clavinitialis as a separate species..." - This is a run-on sentence and should be divided into multiple sentences.

--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these should be somewhat fixed? But a reread is in order. Its difficult to explain how all the specimens are associated with names etc given the inconsistent (and even just straight wrong) attributions of who found and described what. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Beginning the description section with "Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus are close relatives..." seems a little disjointed. I would keep the lead paragraph of the section to speaking strictly about Lambeosaurus. Detailed discussions of close relatives can be relegated to the more specific anatomy in the later sections and the classification section.
It seems odd to discuss the facial skeleton and mandible in great detail, but have the anatomy of the braincase relegated to a single sentence. Not saying you need to add a whole new paragraph, but at least some description beyond "similar to other lambeosaurines" seems appropriate.
"...with no features of the skeleton distinguishing it from relatives..." - This clause is unclear because the "relatives" are unspecified and the importance of the lack of distinguishing features is not explained.

No other notes specifically for the description, its generally very well-written and the sentences flow much more nicely than in the above section. In the meantime, I'll reread the discovery and species section to see if I have any other thoughts. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the description have been made. I didn't fully remove mention of Corythosaurus and Hypacrosaurus from the first sentence since it is often noted right away, but I moved it to the end so it should focus more on Lambeosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image suggestions

Seems the article is already attracting a lot of prose review, so for now I'll leave some suggestions about the imagery. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned the Pacific Museum mount may not be Lambeosaurus, I wonder if it's appropriate to use it as an example of postcranial featues in that section (which should probably be renamed "postcranial skeleton", as the skull is part of the skeleton). Don't we have other images focusing on skeletal elements of definite Lambeosaurus?
- None uploaded. I have some of the TMP mount but they aren't particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps some older papers have some, like the images in Sternberg 1935.

Yeah, I was just about to add that there must be PD photos of individual elements in some of the older papers we could use. If a lot of individual images, we could put them in a multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a skull photo[16] under feeding before which seemed fitting, but it has been removed for some reason.

Likewise, there are images of juvenile skulls[17] that could be used under growth. In fact, I think that photo would work better in the skull section, and then the more complete ontogeny photo now under skull would make sense in the growth section?

There are two good ABelov2014 images so far unused that could maybe be used under palaeobiology or palaeoecology, what do you think?[18][19] I can modify eventual inaccuracies, the biggest one seems to be that Avaceratops is shown alongside them, which, as far as I know, didn’t live with them. Perhaps their identity could be changed or they could be cropped or painted out.
- Parasaurolophus didn't coexist with L. magnicristatus, so thats a bit of an issue, but both can be uploaded regardless just to give some more possibilities for use or function. There may also be images in the PLoS papers cited that I've missed to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may also be redundant compared to the images already in the paleoecology section, perhaps no need for two restorations of a Lambeosaurus group being chased by tyrannosaurs. The one with the Parasaurolophus also seems to show L. magnicristatus with a little spike at the back of the crest, which I guess is inaccurate, and coupled with other inaccuracies, it's probably not worth the time to fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge deal, but subjects of images could face the text where possible, per MOS (mainly thinking of the ontogeny heads restoration).
- I've tried to restructure and reorient images in a way that works for my monitor. If there are other adjustments to make feel free to make or suggest them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see they were removed, but I do think we should figure photos of all the species (if room is lacking, they should take precedence over showing related taxa, which now take up a lot of space), perhaps a multiple image template including these:[20][21]