This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I'll take a look, make straightforward copyedits and jot queries below:
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
A little drive-by comment, the osteology paper mentions a specimen (CEUM 34447) from the same bonebeds, which may be a different hadrosaur taxon or an aberrant Eolambia, perhaps worth a mention under ecology or in history?
FunkMonk (
talk) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd forgotten about that! It seems appropriate for the Paleobiology section; thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 17:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, kind of depends on what you want to emphasise, whether it is an aberrant Eolambia, or another taxon... If both, maybe history is the best compromise... Or spread it out to different sections. I only noticed the specimen because I was reading through the captions on Commons, and realised it would have to be taken out of the Eolambia category...
FunkMonk (
talk) 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Mentioned under Discovery and naming. Nice opportunity to shift the images around a little. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks good juxtaposed with the holotype dentary, really shows the difference! As a side note, if the vertically long images (which you have many of) take too much space and are too intrusive, you can add the "upright" parameter to them.
FunkMonk (
talk) 02:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The Description section is dense with technical words, which is common with all these dino articles. Question is, can we substitute any more accessible words? So would you consider "upper jaw" synonymous with "maxilla", in which case several "maxilla's can be written in plainer English...
I feel that is problematic, because there are other elements in the so-called "upper jaw" - the premaxilla, certainly, perhaps the nasals as well if we count the entire snout region. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 17:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, fair point. I didn't think there'd be much that could be done in this section without compromising accuracy...
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
...which constitutes the majority of the lower jaw. --> "which constitutes most of the lower jaw. "?
The term "styracosterna(ns)" gets dumped in the text without explanation.
It's linked, though; would the same go for the introduction of "iguanodonts" in the previous section? Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
True - I guess a link is fine for folks with some knowledge of dinosaurs and/or cladistics, which I suspect will be the vast majority of folks reading it. I also suspect diverging into an explanation is disruptive to the flow of the article. However, have a look at
Corona Borealis and see the segment on "37 stars brighter than or equal to apparent magnitude 6.5" - I have added a footnote with an explanation of that as it is not integral to the article but helps with context if someone is unfamiliar with the term. It might be a solution to have a footnote noting that how these two clades encompass Eolambia or something.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
A nice idea, but I'm unsure on the execution. I don't know what I can put besides their literal phylogenetic definition, which I feel would be equally abstruse. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Point taken...anyhoo, not a deal-breaker.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
... the best-preserved sacrum preserves seven vertebrae... - try to avoid two "preserve" in the one sentence.
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: - nice job and definitely within striking distance of FA-hood too. The image licencing of PLOS is a bonanza I hadn't realised too....
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 20:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Where are these clades from?
The bottom two cladograms at the end of
Subsequent research, derived from Gates et al. (2018) -
doi:10.7717/peerj.5300 - feature positions labelled Hadrosauriformes, Iguanodontidae, Hadrosauroidea and Hadrosauromorpha. However, these clade names are not provided on the original cladograms (Fig. 22). At least some of these clades have also not been defined phylogenetically in the text, so we can't be placing them where they are currently, unless we cite another source. To demonstrate the incongruence, the text underneath Fig. 22 reads "...other early diverging hadrosauroids (Altirhinus, Barilium, Proa, (Bolong + Jinzhousaurus)...when Choyrodon is coded as possessing an antorbital fenestra". However, in our corresponding cladogram, all of these genera are clearly positioned outside Hadrosauroidea. Iguanodontidae is also labelled on the right hand cladogram, yet it appears not to have been mentioned in the text of the paper at all. Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus are called iguanodontians immediately prior to the aforementioned quote (which would relate to the left hand cladogram, anyway), but Iguanodontia does not equal Iguanodontidae. So it's quite clear to me that these clade positions are unsupported by the reference. These are also the most obvious examples that stuck out to me, so it's quite possible that the exact positions of other clades are also not inferable from this paper. Are others also unable to corraborate these positions using that paper, or is there something obvious that's totally flying over my head?
Zigongosaurus1138 (
talk) 11:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't write this, but sometimes such info can be found in the supplemental material, if there is any for these papers.
FunkMonk (
talk) 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the response. I've checked them, but I don't think there's anything there. A bunch of phylogenetic matrices and a picture.
Zigongosaurus1138 (
talk) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
In hindsight the inclusion of Hadrosauroidea in the first cladogram was very dumb, yes. I just put the clade names where their definitions place them, it did not occur to me that they would need additional references. Hadrosauromorpha needs to stay as it's necessary for collapsing that part of the cladogram.
LittleLazyLass (
Talk |
Contributions) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply