Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cimoliopterus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2021 [1].

Cimoliopterus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC); JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pterosaur only definitely known from jaw fragments, but which has been historically important for the understanding of the group. It was one of the largest pterosaurs known when it was named in 1851, and one of the first members of the group to be depicted in sculpture, but its appearance was unclear until more complete relatives were discovered in the 1980s. We have summarised the historical literature about the animal here, which also means the article gets into some complicated, 19th century taxonomy, so parts of it may be difficult to understand, so we are open for any suggestions that would make it more approachable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: licensing looks OK, but many of the images are too small to see easily. For example, "Holotype snout tips of P. fittoni, O. brachyrhinus, and O. enchorhynchus" should be scaled up so it is more accessible. You might consider cropping the right half (diagram part) of the images so that the fossil image can be displayed larger. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's much more to see on them, though, but I've scaled it up a bit. But I disagree with cropping the diagrams out, they're exactly what's needed for people to notice that they're anything but just brown rocks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Very comprehensive, some nitpicks though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your geographical unit for the European finds seems to be England, whereas two London-born people are referred to as British, rather than English. Is this consistent?
Forgot this one, I kept it "British" for the people mentioned because I couldn't be sure which were specifically English and who not. I think it would look strange if I only write English for some of them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I’d bother with the country in Kent, England or Texas, US.
All the sources make a point out of this, so I think it's important to include, also because the same formations can stretch across state boundaries, counties, etc (which was also demonstrated with the map-issue below). Or do you mean only in the intro specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’premaxillary ‘’— link in lead
Linked to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the older link, as it was now duplinked in he intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. ‘’ —the multiple “withs” make this harder to follow
I think this has already been fixed? It's currently like this if I'm not wrong: "with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws." JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it refers to the similar sentence in the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed in intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teeth at the front ... . Their necks ‘’ —subject of “their “seems to have been lost
Changed to "the" instead of "their" to avoid adding more words. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’made of dark stone ‘’ —namely?
Specified to "iron-framed concrete". FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’wastebin ‘’ bit of an easter egg, write in full I think
Well, the problem is the source only says "wastebin", which the familiar reader would know is equivalent to the linked term wastebasket taxon. I'm not sure how free I am to change the terminology of the source here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your criterion for red-linking names?
In this case I think it's because David Unwin is notable enough to get an article, no one has just come down to it yet... FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kimolia (Κιμωλία), which means "chalk", and pteron (πτερόν) which means "wing". —Second “which means” seems redundant
Changed the second one to "meaning" so it varies a bit. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri ‘’— Italics needed
Italicized. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’and less than 180°)’’ —is this needed?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Palaeoenvironment, you say ‘’The holotype of C. cuvieri was found in Kent, England ‘’, but the stratigraphic map says it was found in the area depicted, which is Cambridgeshire, nowhere near Kent. Am I missing something?
Ah, nice to get an actual English person to look over this then, I'll see if we can find an alternate map. This here map was from an article that actually covered C. cuvieri, though... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the map and moved the worldmap down in its place. It did show the same formation, just in a different area of England. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, I'm happy to leave the wastebin, see if anyone else picks it up. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, the wastebin issue can possibly be handled more elegantly... FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Par 2 sent 1 in the lead, just for brevity you should just say "Cimoliopterus is estimated to have had..." if both species are estimated to have had about the same wingspan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complicated than that, which is why the wording is somewhat convoluted. It is elaborated on under description. The problem is that one writer stated they were similar in size, but then proceeded to give a smaller estimate for C. dunni than had been given for C. cuvieri before... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cimoliopterus is distinct from related pterosaurs in features..." this sounds weird because it's a pretty obvious statement. Maybe something like "Cimoliopterus is most notably distinguished by..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "can be distinguished from related pterosaurs" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others can weigh in, but I feel like the 2nd par is too descriptive and technical for the lead, and the lead is overall pretty big for an article this size. I feel like we can just leave it at a long, crested beak (bill? snout? whatever) with recurved and protrusive teeth, size, wingspan, and hair and membrane. Palatal ridges, tooth sockets, and comparisons with other taxa seem too much   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we need to know what distinguishes it from similar pterosaurs, and what distinguishes the two species from each other. Otherwise every intro description about most pterosaurs could just be the same, which is pointless. As for length, there are MOS guides for that at WP:lead length. But I have removed the following text, which was probably too general for the intro: "The necks were proportionally long, the torsos relatively small, and the forelimbs were proportionally enormous compared to the legs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Par 3 sent 1 and 2 really belong in Par 1 with the rest of the taxonomy discussion. Also, you say it was classified into Ornithocheirus twice   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is higher level taxonomy, which is covered in the classification section, so the intro follows the order of the article itself in this regard. I don't see where it says it was classified as Ornithocheirus twice, it says ornithocheiran the second time around, which is a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was only classified as an ornithocherian when it was placed in Anhanguera and Ornithocheirus. Therefore, mentioning ornithocheiran is redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is still considered an ornithocheiran. You may be confusing it with ornithocheirid, which is a narrower group which it is not considered part of today (by Brazilian researchers at least, British researchers still largely follow the ornithocheirid scheme, but see also the cladogram based on Jacobs 2019). There is generally still a deep division between the pterosaur classification schemes used by Brazilian versus British palaeontologists, and it will probably not be resolved any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Par 3 sent 3 and 4 are the longest-winded way of saying they were adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened to "This kind of pterosaur was probably adapted for long-distance oceanic soaring". But that these two species evolved in this particular way needs to be spelled out, I think. "Adapted for trans-oceanic travel and dispersed across the North Atlantic" probably isn't understandable to most readers, though it works well as condensed for more familiar readers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While some have suggested the premaxillary crests were used to stabilise the jaws while submerged in water during feeding, they may have been used as display structures instead" the way this is worded, it implies the former were probably wrong   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is, as elaborated in the palaeobiology section. But this is a less strong way of saying it, which is more neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is considered confusing" this is like when journalists have to write "allegedly" in the titles to avoid lawsuits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "has been described as confusing", as multiple sources state this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "foot flat on the ground", as it is only one foot. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation in palaeontology is used this way. See for example these Google Scholar results:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Dunkleosteus77, do you have any further comments on FunkMonk's responses, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Obviously it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and such fish may also have altered their flight capability, as is the case for bats" this implies you're talking about bats eating fish, when the source seems to only be talking about bats eating mosquitos   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't imply what the bats in this context have been eating, all it says is "Furthermore, possibly their stomachs might not have been able to contain a large fish without substantially altering flight capabilities, as in modern bats (Altringham 1996)". So we can't be more specific than the source, but note that some bats do eat fish[3], so we can't rule out that's what the source refers to either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were probably for minimising water attrition" I assume you didn't understand the physics and just read the caption. Basically it's saying Coloborhynchus approached the water with its head parallel to the surface, then sunk its lower jaw into the water, and then turned its entire head down towards the fish (perpendicular to the surface). It also had to extend its neck forward as it flew in order to have enough to time grasp the fish because the fish would be swimming at a slower speed than the pterosaur. The crest acted like a rudder to keep the head stationary, counteracting the force of the surface ocean current moving perpendicular to the direction of the pterosaur up to 5 m/s, aided by the rigidity of the neck in lateral directions. Beyond that speed, the pterosaur would only be able to maintain stability in the water if it's moving in the same direction as the current. Birds are small enough to use their wings to exert a balancing force, but the larger pterosaurs' wings would plunge into the water if it attempted that strategy. You don't have to include all of this, but certainly "water attrition" with no context is unintelligible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply didn't think the theoretical details were important or interesting enough for the reader to explain in depth, as it wasn't this genus that was used for the experiment anyway, but a relative, so the current wording seemed sufficient. But I'm not against adding more detail, it just needs to be concise enough. I have paraphrased some of what you wrote above, but any further suggestions are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added "(Young’s modulus, tensile elasticity)" after the mention. Not sure how else to do this concisely without the sentence becoming unwieldy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said "(the main structural element)". FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane, the tensions needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter, and minimising ballooning of the membrane under flight loads" I don't believe most people would understand this level of fluid mechanics. You can just say something like "to infer the minimum surface tension necessary to withstand drag/air resistance/the wind/etc. at high flight speeds, thus preventing structural failure. This can be counteracted by thickening the wing membrane, but this would cumbersomely increase its weight. So, the required tension is only feasibly minimized if the material of the wing par has a high elastic modulus (a measure of a material's resistance to temporary deformation), such as keratin." You can also include their estimated Young's modulus value of 1–2 GPa assuming the keratin (5 GPa) makes up 20–40% of the wing membrane.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I'm not sure that ths level of methodological details of an experimental paper would be particularly interesting in an article about an animal genus, it is mainly the conclusions that concern us. I think most of what you wrote there would actually be less understandable to the reader than the current wording, but I think the first part was concise enough, so I've added the folliwing hybrid "to infer the likely tension of the wing membrane needed to suppress aeroelastic flutter (instability caused by air resistance) at high flight speeds, and minimising ballooning, thus preventing structural failure of the membrane under flight loads". FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will review over this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't stay up late on a work night, but I drank three glasses of sweet tea earlier, so here I am still awake.

Hope you didn't begin seeing pink pterosaurs in your exhaustion! FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was since assigned to various other genera, including Ornithocheirus and Anhanguera." - maybe it's just me, but "was since" doesn't seem well for some reason
Tried with "subsequently", any better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works
  • "has been described as confusing" - by whom?
Added "by modern pterosaur researchers", or do you mean more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that works
  • "C. cuvieri has a low snout compared to Ornithocheirus and also possesses a forward-facing first pair of tooth sockets, unlike that genus." - maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but since Ornithocheirus is a wastebasket taxon, can you really compare it to that?
Good point, it refers to the type species of Ornithocheirus, which is the only definite member of the genus. I've now stated in the history section that the genus is now restricted to that species, should make it clearer what is referred to in later mentions. Added "which they restricted to its type species, O. simus". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it add anything to the article to have two very similar depictions of the holotype when it still had teeth?
The first one is interesting because it was the first published depiction, and the second is unique in showing further views (back, front), and close ups of the teeth. They're also very far from each other, so are used to illustrate different aspects (history for the first one, anatomy for the other). FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At less than 1 millimetre (0.039 in) " - this feels like false precision on the inches conversion to me, since inches are generally only rarely measured down to the .001 precision, and it's not an exact number anyway
Think I got rid of it by adding sigfig=1. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Classification section. Will try to finish this off tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in addition to the species O. sedgwicki (now considered the type species of Aerodraco or alternatively a species of Camposipterus" - Aerodraco sedgwicki is mentioned later but spelled sedgwickii, is the single-i spelling a typo or how it was originally spelled? It's also spelled sedgwickii later when referring to C. sedgwickii, so that same query applies there
It depends on the sources, but originally and today, it was sedgwickii. I think the problem is because 19th century writers like Owen thought they could simply "correct" names they thought were wrong, which is not accepted today. Hence it was referred to as O. sedgwicki during its time under Ornithocheirus... FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing to say about classification between Hooley 1914 and Unwin 2001?
Not really for higher level classification, hence the sentence "O. cuvieri and many other English pterosaurs were kept in the genus Ornithocheirus for most of the 20th century" under history. What else happened in between with the various species is covered under history, but it was mainly changes of names. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cimoliopterus is unlikely to be paraphyletic (an unnatural group)" - is this consensus? Or does it need attribution, as it looks like almost everything for classification about this genus is open to discussion
Added "according to Myers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you cite Witton's blog, recommend author-linking Mark P. Witton to make it clear that he qualifies as a subject-matter expert.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aussiedraco (of Albian age) " - link Albian
Done, an earlier mention with link must have been snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in a category about Albian age life, but the only mentions of the Albian period is to compare it to some life that happened to be in the Albian (along with a varmint from a different period)
Removed, not sure how that was added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013). "Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England"." - citing a range of over 100 pages is pretty long. This may need specific page number citations
I've broken it up like some of the book sources, with individual page ranges. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all it is used for is to list other fossils from the same formation, and not to cite novel hypotheses, I think it should be fine. It is most likely just a summary of other papers anyway. But I can try to find the cited articles instead if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably okay for non-controversial information like that, given that it's from a respected research university. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Csiki-Sava, Z.; Buffetaut, E.; Ősi, A.; Pereda-Suberbiola, X.; Brusatte, S. L. (2015). "Island life in the Cretaceous - faunal composition, biogeography, evolution, and extinction of land-living vertebrates on the Late Cretaceous European archipelago"" - page range of over 150 pages; probably needs specific page numbers
Fixed, the online version is not divided into pages, so I had a look at the PDF version. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. While I looked at the sources some, this is not a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be answers to everything now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Not an expert enough to strongly assess 1b and 1c, but I saw nothing that stood out as a possible issue. Did not check image licensing. Hog Farm Talk 06:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, articles like this surely need to be checked by non-experts for accessibility too! FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I made some edits to the article to put references in numerical order. Please review and revert if I messed something up.

  • Regarding the images with this caption, "Two sculptures from the 1850s in Crystal Palace Park based on C. cuvieri...": The front-facing image is difficult to see because there are obstructions in the image and the resolution is too small. I recommend removing it and just showing the side image at a larger resolution.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were depicted with scales, though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering (a feature already realised by some scientists at the time)," I would put "though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering" inside the brackets as it is different from the description of the statue's depiction, and it makes it more clear that the bird-like proportions are describing the statues, not what scientists now know about the species. I also suggest some phrasing changes, outlined in this rewording: "They were depicted with scales (though pterosaurs are now known to have had a hair-like covering a feature already realised by some scientists at the time) and bird-like proportions such as small heads and large torsos, as was customary at the time."
Took your wording (with a comma after "covering"). FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the foot flat on the ground" -> "one foot flat on the ground".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised." I think "though this had not been previously recognised" can be removed as the preceding sentences are describing how the Brazillian specimens brought new information about the English specimens, so it's assumed that this information was not recognised before this period.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and cited him for the name, without further explanation." Remove comma?
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed hindward on the snout, by the seventh socket pair," Remove comma?
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowerbank and Owen described and figured the now lost teeth found with the C. cuvieri holotype in 1851." Is figured the right word to use there, or is there a word missing? Not sure what this phrasing is trying to say.
"Figured" as a verb is pretty standard in scientific papers, as a shorter way of saying "showed an illustration of". Other examples on Google Scholar:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which protruded about one-third of an inch, downwards and forwards at an oblique angle." Remove comma
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But it still remained a mystery why no close" Delete But?
Changed "but" to "however". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They concluded the recognition of the clade Targaryendraconia" -> "They concluded that the recognition"
Changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(96–90 million years ago)." It's unusual for me that the date furthest away is placed first. Should the two numbers be flipped?
It's usually like that with paleontological articles, from older to younger. I'm not really sure why this is, perhaps since it's million years BC, but I'm not completely sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By analogy, I think, nobody will say World War II (1945-1939). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the analogy would work with comparing to 96-90 mya vs 1939-1945. In both cases, the most recent number is written later, which my guess is why the date furthest away is written first, because that's how date ranges are normally done. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes sense. I think I was thrown off that the higher number was first. If other paleontological articles follow the same style, then it shouldn't be changed here. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, the references are not consistent with books; sometimes they are given an sfn template and placed in Works Cited, othertimes they are given ref tags. This should be consistent.
Same as below, only those books where multiple page ranges have been needed are split up like that. Not sure if there are really standards for this here, as I've used such a mixed style in multiple FACs without issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs for books should be consistent with which version is used (10-digit or 12-digit) and the use of dashes.
I think this is now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)." is the only journal source placed in Works Cited. Why is that? As with the books, journal citations should be consistent on if they are using sfn templates or ref tags.
It's because it's the only journal source long enough to have to be broken up into multiple page ranges. Any suggestions for alternatives? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to put all journal entries in sfn templates citing the specific page numbers, then have the journal listed in Works Cited and include the page numbers of the total article. Since this is a lot of extra work and probably not preferable, I won't let this affect a future support for me. However, page numbers for "Rodrigues, T.; Kellner, A. (2013)" should be included in the Works Cited. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the full page range for Rodrigues & Kellner, if that's what you meant. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there page numbers for "Myers, T. S. (2015)", "Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018)" and "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V.; Canudo, J. I.; Fortuny, J.; Rodrigues, T.; Company, J.; Kellner, A. W. A. (2019)"?
Fixed per below, they didn't have page numbers in their html versions, so they had to be taken from the pdfs. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when these are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and for the citation edits too, I'll have a look at these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All should now be addressed, Z1720. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support based on this prose review. Z1720 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Seeing as this needs one yet, I'll put this on my to-do list. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • the page range for the article "Holgado, B.; Pêgas, R. V. (2020). "A taxonomic and phylogenetic review of the anhanguerid pterosaur group Coloborhynchinae and the new clade Tropeognathinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 65. doi:10.4202/app.00751.2020" would be nice
Oh yeah, we've apparently missed that one somehow. Added. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto with " Longrich, N. R.; Martill, D. M.; Andres, B.; Penny, D. (2018). "Late Maastrichtian pterosaurs from North Africa and mass extinction of Pterosauria at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". PLOS Biology. 16 (3): e2001663. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001663. PMC 5849296. PMID 29534059.", if possible, unless the e2001663 is already a way of indicating location within the publication
Added from pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and " Myers, T. S. (2015). "First North American occurrence of the toothed pteranodontoid pterosaur Cimoliopterus". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (6): e1014904. doi:10.1080/02724634.2015.1014904. S2CID 86099117."
This doesn't even have page numbers in the pdf, it only says "Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology e1014904 (9 pages)". So I just gave the 1–9 range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The three above are really just to indicate the location within the publication. If it's not possible to get page numbers, I don't think that's a big deal.

A problem with some of these (such as Plos 1) is that they're online publications not divided into pages, you just scroll down and down on the article's page. But one way to get around it would be to download the pdf version and give the page ranges from there, if that sounds good, but we most likely didn't ever look at the pdfs while writing the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blog is cited (Witton), but the author meets WP:SPS
  • page ranges/numbers provided for the book/article length sources are satisfactory, IMO.
  • Sources are all reliable
  • Spot checks I did turned up no issues with source-text integrity or close paraphrasing
  • source formatting is okay in all points that seem to be major

The sole comments are things that fall into the "nice, but don't seem to be strictly necessary" range in my opinion, so this can be considered a pass on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missing page numbers now added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cimoliopterus/archive1&oldid=1039221119"