Template:Did you know nominations/Pterodactylus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Pterodactylus

(
)
Life reconstruction of Pterodactylus
Life reconstruction of Pterodactylus
  • ... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) only had a wingspan exceeding 1 meter (3.3 ft), and the animal itself also had a low bony cranial crest on its skull? Source: "demonstrates that the species exceeded 1 m in wingspan and had a low bony cranial crest" [1]
    • ALT1:... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", with many specimens split from the type species, and were then placed in different genera and families? Source: "Throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, specimens were split from the type species Pterodactylus antiquus, and placed in different genera and families" [2]
  • Comment: This just got pass GA yesterday, so it works, right?

Improved to Good Article status by JurassicClassic767 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

  • It works! Long enough, sourced, eligible. I changed your image width to "160" because it is horizontal.
Let's talk about these hooks... Alt1 might be more interesting if written well, but it's really technical, and I honestly don't understand it. For the main hook, the source says: "a new specimen of P. antiquus larger than all previously known specimens, which demonstrates that the species exceeded 1 m in wingspan and had a low bony cranial crest", but you say it only exceeds one meter, giving the idea that it is small. Can you come up with some better hooks? Maybe...
"... that Pterodactylus, the scientific genus for a pterodactyl, was a carnivore that most likely preyed on fish and other small animals?"
I don't know if that specific wording would be correct, and it admittedly still sounds a bit awkward, but it'd be nice to add in how Pterodactylus relates to the well-known Pterodactyl, for that's what people will be interested in. Awsomaw (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a better way to say what you said above is: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for pterodactyl, was a carnivore that most likely preyed on fish and other small animals?" I've put "name" instead of "genus" since people will be more familiar when they see "scientific name" instead of "scientific genus". For my main hook, maybe a better way to say it is: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had a maximum wingspan exceeding 1 meter (3.3 ft), and a feature that the animal itself had was a low bony cranial crest on its skull?" Since the source says that a new specimen was found larger than the previous ones, maybe putting "maximum" would be good? Because as far as I know, the source was published in 2013 (pretty recent), and no other later discoveries of Pterodactylus found larger specimens.
Another idea I've got is perhaps mixing some info from my main hook ('cause I admit that the second one is really scientific) and your hook? Maybe something like this: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for pterodactyl, was a carnivore that had a maximum wingspan that exceeds 1 meter (3.3 ft)?" I'll admit I'm not so good at creating hooks, but is this a good idea, or should we just stick to the ones above? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@JurassicClassic767: I like this combined hook idea. I think it's kinda confusing to talk about a "maximum wingspan that exceeds ___", because then you don't really have a maximum. Maybe just:
ALT2: ... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for a pterodactyl, was a carnivore whose wingspan could exceed 1 meter (3.3 ft)?
Also, what do you think about getting rid of the word "pterosaur"? Since we already have Pterodactylus and pterodactyl. Let me know what you think. Awsomaw (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Awsomaw: The word "pterosaur" actually describes the animal a bit more, but since you said that there is Pterodactylus and pterodactyl already, I'm actually ok removing it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Good to go as ALT2. Since you prefer keeping 'pterosaur', we'll keep it there unless someone else objects. Awsomaw (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this. I find the nominator's original hooks nicely descriptive and maybe other descriptive things could be found to write a good hook. But the reviewer's suggestion for ALT2 is simply a dictionary definition. BTW per Rule H2, the reviewer is not allowed to approve a hook he suggested. Could you suggest something else please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, Yoninah. JurassicClassic767, I think that the idea of a "wastebasket taxon" for ALT1 is interesting, but I don't quite understand what the rest of the hook was saying, maybe that could be expanded on in place of the "textbook definition". I still think that the addition of "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is a helpful addition to clarifying to readers what this is. Let me know what you think. Awsomaw (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw, I also think that "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is a helpful addition, but this isn't stated in one of my hooks, in addition to the fact that this segment was something you suggested, therefore, like Yoninah said, the reviewer is not allowed to approve a hook he/she suggested.
As for the "wastebasket taxon" hook, maybe we could simplify what it states, perhaps something like: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", with many species assigned to it, and later reassigned to other genera and families?" This is perhaps a more or less simplified way of saying it, but maybe it's still a bit too scientific, and also, I think "families" isn't needed since it confuses readers more? Let me know what you think about it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
JurassicClassic767, I believe that the problem with the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is not that I came up with it, but that I put it into an official hook proposal, and then accepted it. So the phrase is not irredeemable if you still would like to use it. In addition, I can approve one of your proposed hooks if you just propose it officially, with the bolded intro like I did with ALT2.
As for the new hook, it's a lot better. So I guess what you're saying is that many species used to be assigned to the taxon Pterodactylus, and then was moved to another taxon, right? maybe... "because many species were assigned to the taxon that were later reassigned to other genera and families?". Awsomaw (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw Then I guess I should put "ALT3" to my proposal to be approved officially? So, the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" could still be used? If so, how about this: ALT3: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", this is because many species were assigned to it, and later reassigned to other genera and families?" I've just took your suggestion above, and made some modifications while also adding the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl", let me know whay you think. Oh, and yes, you did get the meaning of what a "wastebasket taxon" is. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
JurassicClassic767, nice. Maybe ""wastebasket taxon", as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned to other genera and families?" to be more concise. Everything else looks good. Thanks!
@Yoninah:, I have a question for you. With this new modified hook, since I contributed a lot to the writing of a new hook, does that mean that the best action is to ask for another editor's approval of the hook? Please advise. Awsomaw (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw, We could change it a bit of course, I don't really mind. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Awsomaw: looking at this thread, it appears that JurassicClassic767 proposed the ALT1 hook and you are simply tweaking the language without adding any new facts, correct? So you can complete the review. But ALT3 is way over the 200-character limit. Please write out your suggested wording as ALT4, check that it's under 200 characters, and then review and approve it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that Pterodactylus (pictured), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned to other taxonstaxa?

What do you think about this hook JurassicClassic767? I've removed "pterosaur" and consolidated "genera and families" into "taxon" and linked it for those who don't know. Awsomaw (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw, everything is good enough, though I think putting "the" before Pterodactylus is a bit inappropriate, since Pterodactylus is a proper noun given to a specific type of animal, "the" is probably unnecessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Since the change is small, I just removed the word from ALT4. The hook looks good, and it is well cited. Everything else has been checked before. Awsomaw (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Awsomaw! As I said, you're allowed to tweak the hook; you're even allowed to tweak the article and continue reviewing it if you haven't done a major overhaul (in which case you would add yourself to the DYK credit line and call for a new reviewer). BTW, "taxa" is the plural of "taxon", and since "taxon" is linked earlier, I unlinked it. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The citation for the hook (which is also the one for ALT1) says: "Until relatively recently, the genus Pterodactylus Cuvier, 1809 had been a wastebasket taxon that has included many diverse pterosaurs..." It is in the lines 37-38 if it's hard to find. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
JurassicClassic767, I believe what Yoninah is saying is that you need to cite the fact in the article Pterodactylus, which you just did. It should be gtg now. Awsomaw (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pterodactylus&oldid=1026174399"