Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elasmosaurus/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2018 [1].

Elasmosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article about a plesiosaur to be nominated for FAC. Elasmosaurus is also the most viewed articles about a long-necked plesiosaur genus, and gets more hits than even Plesiosaurus itself. Therefore it is a good place to start, and to set a standard for how other plesiosaur articles can be written. Elasmosaurus has a well-known, dramatic history, and we have summarised all we could find about the animal here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

As I was checking the sources to find nice books on Elasmosaurus, I got surprised by how the bibliography is organised, as a mixed of several ways of doing. The book by Everhart 2005 is cited using the sfn template but is the only one to be so (I corrected the harv error by the way). The rest of the bibliography is rich and interesting but looks at bit messy. I have a strong preference for full sfn bibliographies, which separate text references and the books/articles themselves (see Nyuserre Ini for an example).

The way the refs are written poses a serious problem for sourcing claims, for example ref [13] appears four times and all we are told is that the claim sources are in the page span 215–240, corresponding to the entire source. I was told that in FA, claims should be page specific so as to enable the reader to source them and check for his/her-self. The sfn template would definitely allow you to specify both the precise pages for each claim (which I see as a requirement for FA) while at the same time displaying the whole span 215–240 in the bibliography section. It would also make the text references look less messy.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there has been a long back and forth[2] about how long page ranges should be, and there is currently no consensus. I agree page ranges should not be too long, but I have never seen anyone suggest that all citations should be page specific, ranges are very much allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I always give page ranges rather than individual pages for my FAC journal refs, which is normal practice outside wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't great, take for example Persson, P.O. (1963), which has 6 refs and a page span of 60pages. It seems that we require a lot of effort on the reader behalf here. My view is that we should help the reader check the source by providing narrow enough page ranges. I would say no more than 5 pages span, although this is obviously arbitrary, yet 60 pages is far too much. Also imagine the pain for whoever is going to do the source spot-check. IN addition, my comment is also about (lack of) consistency: Everhart has specific pages or narrow page spans (this is great), while none of the others have that. I may be wrong, but I feel like this state of fact was "forced" onto the editor(s) by the use of the "< ref >" template as opposed to sfn. I have no doubt that the editors accessed the specific pages and thus would have been in good position to provide optimal narrow page spans or speficic pages while writing the article, yet couldn't do so nicely with "ref", as this would have separated multiple entries to the same work.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues at hand. Journal articles are usually not broken up, unless they are very long. With books, if the page range is short, the few pages used are given for each book, whereas long books from which many different page ranges are used, such as Everhart, are usually broken up. I have never seen anyone ask for consistency in this, see for example earlier FACs Istiodactylus, Smilodon, or Columbian mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I understand now that the bibliography format is quite acceptable wiz other articles and the sources themselves are impeccable. Furthermore it is anyway too late to get precise page numbers for all claims. I hope that in the future you will consider using the sfn template throughout. That said, I should clearly state that I enjoyed reading the article, which I found to be well written and complete. I have no reproach to make, it is always a pleasure to see nice additions to wikipedia.
Perhaps I can suggest that you add alt text for all the images?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've myself used various citation styles from article to article, depending on what fit me best at the moment... Yeah, we should be able to add alt-text. LittleJerry, if I fix the pictures down to classification, can you take them from there? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to add some kind of alt-text to the images in the sections mentioned, not an expert on this, though. Maybe LittleJerry wants to look at the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the function of the neck section, I remember reading in a book on dinosaurs that a possibility considered by researchers is that the long neck was an advantage for fish hunting (if I remember correctly what they said, it was because it would allow the head to be close to or in schools of fish, while the large body would remain some distance away). In the section on Feeding you discuss something similar but I am surprised this is not further discussed in the neck section.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this one for LittleJerry, who wrote the section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few pictures are still missing their alt text. Other than that I would be happy to support.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue with the photo of vertebrates, I think you put the alt text as main caption. The infobox image is also missing the alt text, use image_alt = to write it.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed them now. FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • genus of plesiosaur — why isn't it genus of plesiosaurs?
seems consistent with other article FAs of prehistoric animal genera. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I must admit I've never given this any thought, just copied what was written in earlier dinosaur FAs. But I do think the current wording sounds better. Maybe Casliber can explain, having nominated some of those earlier articles? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several technical terms such as "pectoral and pelvic girdles, vertebrae, maxilla, invertebrate, centrum, quadratic/quadrate and sacral" are either not linked at all or not at first use
Linked. Centrum/centra doesn't have a separate article, though, it just links to vertebra. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of places where multiple refs are not in numerical order
Hmmm, is that a problem? Is there an automated way to fix this? Seems very tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life restoration—I'm not sure about this caption. Life seems inappropriate. Artist's impression perhaps ?
Life restoration/reconstruction is commonly used in palaeontological literature to denote illustrations of an extinct animal in life. Restoration/artist's impression could mean a drawing of a skeleton too, so it is not specific enough. Anyhow, changed to just "restoration", as in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was long on exhibit—I'd prefer It was long exhibited or It was long on exhibition
Took "long exhibited". FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barracuda—surely lower case?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
with regard to having multiple refs in numerical order, it's what I get told to do in my FACs, so just passing on the grief (: Otherwise, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now we'll at least be prepared if someone else asks... FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

Commenting on above, I would leave genus of plesiosaur as singular as it sounds more natural to mine ears...
the necks of elasmosaurids did not attain half the absolute length of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs. - why not " the necks of elasmosaurids were less than half as long as those of of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs."
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the neck vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck. - I'd probably say "Most of the cervical vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck."...as there are a new "necks" around this segment of prose...
Yeah, the "problem" here is that we've made a deal out of using common names for anatomical features after first mention, so it would seem weird if we were inconsistent in just this spot? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. using less-accessible words is not an improvement. So strike that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok..can't see anything else to complain about in terms of prose or comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 3: "Palaentology online" should not be italicised, and you should add a retrieval date.
Fixed, it was formatted as a journal article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: Retrieval dates should be consistently formatted – compare with ref 1
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: Unformatted url
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47: What language?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: What language?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 91: The link goes to an error message.
Changed link. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All should be fixed now, Brianboulton. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images review[edit]

Don't know why, but at least seems to have had a good deal of work done in Photoshop or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Elasmosaurus Size.svg: Use and license seem fine, it seems like there was some discussion about the accuracy as well but nothing worrisome.
Yeah, we try to review user made images before adding them. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ElasmosaurusDB15.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, curiosity may demand to know where the info comes from but that's just curiosity.
Can't say, but I did some modifications to it based on photos of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Elasmosaurusskull.jpg: Use and license seem fine, but I note that the Flickr uploader also has images which has clearly derivative works in their list (e.g here) which makes me wonder about the provenance.
The image is in an album[3] by the uploader with many photos from the same museum, so it at least seems plausible for that one, unless he nicked that many images. But then I think it would be easy to find out with Google image search or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is credited for the article but Cope, who is listed as author there. What do you have in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is used on Commons to show that an image is scientifically inaccurate, and that it should therefore not be used as a factual representation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, seems the website recently moved. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both links work for me, and the tag is there for the same reason as above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of images here, ALT text present & seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added some answers above. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most checks out, but the ALT text for the "outdated" images should be clearer that they are wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "quadratic" is linked to a disambiguation page, and I have no idea which option it should point to. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None, I'd say. Or maybe square-shaped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just remove the link? And yes, it just refers to a shape. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

What's your rule for adding access dates and/or archive urls/dates to weblinks? I think I see 3 with access dates, 0 archived and 55 that have neither. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I add archives when the links die. And I only add access dates to websites that are not web versions of journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any actual rule about this. I'm not even sure we could identify an iron rule regarding consistency of use... just for my personal info, do you think newspaper sites are especially stable? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, this is actually one of the few articles (apart from at least Dromaeosauroides), where I have used a newspaper article as a source... I see archived links to those newspapers have since been added to the other article, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't by me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Just in general, "try to add stuff when you can". If I ever learn an actual rule (I don't think I will), I'll let you know.. Oh, there's this: "Per WP:CITE, accessdate is only required for web sources without a known publication date." And several experienced editors encourage consistency, but... that is nowhere near a deal-breaker (as we discussed on WT:FAC). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) OK. I apologize for using your nom as a guinea pig for my source-checking script; please forgive the inconvenience. I made some changes, including not checking for access date if there is a publication date. That removed many false positives; what we're left with is this:

  1. Deecke, W. (1895)– Missing Location, Missing Publisher; Missing OCLC (helpful but not required)
Turns out this was a journal article, so I have changed the template accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Carpenter, K. (2008); Everhart, M. J. (2005)– Missing location.
Added to Everheart, but I can find no trace of the location for the 2008 book. Even the Google Books preview that shows most of the first pages seemingly shows nothing:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's Dordrecht, the Netherlands. I went to Google Scholar and typed in the book (not chapter) title, then clicked the "Cited by 20" link (not the blue quotation marks, which allegedly give the citation, but they're often incomplete). Then I looked for pdfs I could copy from. I usually check 2 or 3 such if available, because 1 could be wrong. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, who would have imagined... Would you list just the city, or both? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
APA says both, but Wikipedia doesn't care. Just keep it consistent. In fact, you didn't even have to populate the location parameter of the templates, but if you add many of them, then you have to go ahead and get all of them (if possible). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added city, think all are fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Owen, R. (1850); Williston, S.W. (1914); Gay, C. (1848); Andrews, C.W. (1910); Andrews, C.W. (1913); Williston, S.W. (1925); Missing OCLC (helpful but not required) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine, have to start somewhere. I've fixed most issues, apart from the OCLC, which I don't think I've ever even seen used before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (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/Elasmosaurus/archive1&oldid=1216962921"