Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Massospondylus
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 03:19, 20 December 2007.
Massospondylus[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's rather comprehensive [1], well-written, and it's been reviewed a half a dozen times, through many different WP processes:
This is not a flashy, popular dinosaur, but it's accurate and complete. If reader interest prevents this from reaching FA, so be it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Battle of the Gebora made FA because it averages 453,000 page hits per day, so you are out of luck. <kidding> Is "reader interest" a criterion for FA? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, silly, but there has to be consensus to promote the article. If no one comments or reads, it's not going to get promoted. I'm quite happy with the attention this article has received, but I wasn't sure anyone would comment. The peer review for Herrerasaurus sat empty for four months. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably should mention my sincere thanks to J for all his attention and to UI for all his patience with me and hours of copyediting "fun". However this turns out, I appreciated all the help, guys. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, but the initials are UU, not UI :) :) :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, but I was going with Unimaginative Username: UnImaginative. UU sounds too much like W. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it looks like a nice set of cleavage! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hee! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it looks like a nice set of cleavage! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, but I was going with Unimaginative Username: UnImaginative. UU sounds too much like W. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, but the initials are UU, not UI :) :) :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Already?! I thought I passed it for GA last week or so! bibliomaniac15 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You did! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport -though a member of Wikiproject dinosaurs, I've had little to do with this article thus far. A couple of things: Good enough for me cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long depicted as quadrupedal, a recent study indicates Massospondylus was a biped. - tricky, either leave as is and have awkward subject (study) relating to (obviously) Massospondylus in first clause, or flip 2nd clause into passive (usually not a great idea) but at least subjects will agree. I'd probably go the latter and change to Long depicted as quadrupedal, Massospondylus has been found to be bipedal by a recent study. - or something similar.
::Would 'fragmentary', 'scant' or 'poorly preserved' be better options than 'scrappy', which comes across as a bit informal and ambiguous to me?
- Basal sauropodomorph systematics -a teeny bit dry, why not just "The relationships of basal sauropodomorphs" or "early prosauropods and sauropods"
- In the 1970s, seven 190-million-year-old Massospondylus eggs... - MOS says if we have a year known it is better to slot it in.
More to come. Just about there, couple of queries above and we should be done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cas! :) I've attempted to work your suggestions into the article: 1970s has been changed to 1977. "Scrappy" is now "fragmentary". "Long depicted as quadrupedal, a recent study indicates Massospondylus was a biped." is now "Long depicted as quadrupedal, Massospondylus was found to be bipedal in a 2007 study." I also appreciate your edits. I did change "As with other prosauropods, Massospondylus was thought to have had cheeks. " back to "As with other prosauropods, it has been proposed that Massospondylus had cheeks." because this proposal hasn't gone into disuse, whereas your version indicates that they thought it, but no longer do. If you can find a way to rephrase this, please do. Thanks for the review and suggestions. Further suggestions are welcome, nay encouraged. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention: I didn't change "Basal sauropodomorph systematics" to anything. Changing the revision of "The relationships of basal sauropodomorphs" would indicate that the relationships themselves are changing, which isn't true: no, it's our understanding of those relationships -- the systematics -- that is changing. "Early prosauropod and sauropod systematics" might work, but it's pretty clunky, and will confuse readers: what do sauropod systematics have to do with anything? Massospondylus wasn't one. And, per the text itself, if Prosauopoda isn't monophyletic, sauropodomorph is more accurate than prosauropod anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Although Massospondylus was long depicted as quadrupedal, a 2007 study found it to be bipedal."
- Now, the introductory clause and the main clause have parallel structures, subject-verb-adjective.
- Masso - depicted - quadrupedal = study - found - bipedal. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Although Massospondylus was long depicted as quadrupedal, a 2007 study found it to be bipedal."
- Forgot to mention: I didn't change "Basal sauropodomorph systematics" to anything. Changing the revision of "The relationships of basal sauropodomorphs" would indicate that the relationships themselves are changing, which isn't true: no, it's our understanding of those relationships -- the systematics -- that is changing. "Early prosauropod and sauropod systematics" might work, but it's pretty clunky, and will confuse readers: what do sauropod systematics have to do with anything? Massospondylus wasn't one. And, per the text itself, if Prosauopoda isn't monophyletic, sauropodomorph is more accurate than prosauropod anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cas! :) I've attempted to work your suggestions into the article: 1970s has been changed to 1977. "Scrappy" is now "fragmentary". "Long depicted as quadrupedal, a recent study indicates Massospondylus was a biped." is now "Long depicted as quadrupedal, Massospondylus was found to be bipedal in a 2007 study." I also appreciate your edits. I did change "As with other prosauropods, Massospondylus was thought to have had cheeks. " back to "As with other prosauropods, it has been proposed that Massospondylus had cheeks." because this proposal hasn't gone into disuse, whereas your version indicates that they thought it, but no longer do. If you can find a way to rephrase this, please do. Thanks for the review and suggestions. Further suggestions are welcome, nay encouraged. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Covers the topic well (especially nice with an ecology section), referenced, has picures, is not too technical. Narayanese (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking the article over, Narayanese. If you have suggestions for improvement, please do not hesitate to mention them! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW - may I repeat? WOW - nice community involvement!
I would greatly appreciate if you asked past contributors/reviewers/copy-editors: to review, note any possible concerns, and help ensure this FA candidate-ship runs its course un-controversially :).
Query why isn't there a section on history/chronology of research? - I would think this would be rather important in terms of comprehensibility? - Maybe the section named "discovery as species" is badly named.
well-written, well-referenced
--Keerllston 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reading the article, Dwarf Kirlston. I would be happy to ask past contributors/copyeditors/reviewers to stop by and note possible concerns, and make sure their old ones really are addressed. I don't know if they're all willing, but I'd like to give it a try. This article had more input from editors outside WP:DINO than any of our other recent efforts, and I think that's a good thing: it allows for stuff that would be unclear to the average reader to receive more attention.
- Re: History': the Discovery and species section gives an outline of when each species was named, who named it, and what it's considered now. The section could be renamed if you'd like. History of discovery, Discovery and species history, or...? Other recent studies, though, are given their own sections, in Paleobiology or Classification. Would including the results of the same study twice be redundant? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it would be redundant indeed - however in the way that a lead section of the article is redundant for the body of the article. - not in a bad way, at least not necessarily so.
- Classification sounds right now to be a more fitting name than "discovery and species" - if it does deal with classification - as I understand however it attempts to do both a chronology of research and a chronology of classification events/disputes - as well as discuss etymology.
- I am glad that you are amenable to my suggestion :D
- --Keerllston 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should chime in here as I am one of those who has tried streamlining headings in various dinosaur and bird articles. Many dino FAs have uniform headings and Discovery and species evolved from that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Dwarf, I've added a bit more history to the Discovery and species section, in chronological order: just those dubious bits that no paleontologist takes seriously anyway (mostly fragments of bone now lost to science). Per Cas' comment, I kept the title the same. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking once again as a topic-dummy (a valuable POV at times), I think perhaps what makes "Discovery and species" sound strange is that the non-expert reader doesn't intuitively distinguish "genus" from "species", and so doesn't understand that this is the "discovery" of different proposed species of M. With due regard to WP:Dino's efforts, I could humbly suggest having one section entitled "Discovery", referring to the discovery and establishment of the genus, then the next section, uh, is there a verb for naming species? "Speciesization"? Strike that. One section, "Genus discovery", and the next one, "Species discoveries", or, for one as uncertain as this, "Species discoveries and proposals". Something like that. Just some thoughts from your zero-knowledge copy-editor. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea, but the genus discovery is also the species discovery (they're normally named at the same time; only in much rarer instances would there be separate namings for the genus and type species. I'm open to a workaround, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But a number of (proposed) species were named after the original discovery. Seems there should be a way to separate those from the original, but I lack the knowledge of the topic to propose a good workaround. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could have a section for the genus and the type species, and then a subsequent section for the proposed species? But since they're all the same species anyway, would separating them from the type species be productive? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the try I made (also left a note on your talk). "Other species" could be "Other proposed species", "Other proposed species names", etc. The "productive" part is separating what's accepted from what isn't accepted or has been discredited; breaking up a long section of text; and having less-confusing section titles, at least to the lay reader. But I could be wrong on all counts. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But a number of (proposed) species were named after the original discovery. Seems there should be a way to separate those from the original, but I lack the knowledge of the topic to propose a good workaround. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea, but the genus discovery is also the species discovery (they're normally named at the same time; only in much rarer instances would there be separate namings for the genus and type species. I'm open to a workaround, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking once again as a topic-dummy (a valuable POV at times), I think perhaps what makes "Discovery and species" sound strange is that the non-expert reader doesn't intuitively distinguish "genus" from "species", and so doesn't understand that this is the "discovery" of different proposed species of M. With due regard to WP:Dino's efforts, I could humbly suggest having one section entitled "Discovery", referring to the discovery and establishment of the genus, then the next section, uh, is there a verb for naming species? "Speciesization"? Strike that. One section, "Genus discovery", and the next one, "Species discoveries", or, for one as uncertain as this, "Species discoveries and proposals". Something like that. Just some thoughts from your zero-knowledge copy-editor. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Dwarf, I've added a bit more history to the Discovery and species section, in chronological order: just those dubious bits that no paleontologist takes seriously anyway (mostly fragments of bone now lost to science). Per Cas' comment, I kept the title the same. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should chime in here as I am one of those who has tried streamlining headings in various dinosaur and bird articles. Many dino FAs have uniform headings and Discovery and species evolved from that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after making a few edits and with a few comments.
The term "flow-through ventilation" shouldn't have the quote marks, I think, and it should be more clear that what comes after constitutes the "flow-through ventilation" system (if that is what it means).- Nevermind, I reworked that section.
- The significance of the gastrolith stones should be described in the Diet section, which is a bit short anyway. Is there any way to suggest what specifically it might have eaten? (e.g. if it was an herbivore, plants at the time were mostly ferns and short shrubs or whatever) Also, information on what has made paleontologists conclude that it is either herbivorous or omnivorous, but definitely not carnivorous (presumably the gastrolith, but is there anything else?).
- Tuf-Kat (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work, Tuf-Kat. The changes look good. I will try to expand the diet section today; I haven't found any material yet on Massospondylus' diet specifically, but there may be papers on Prosauropod diets that I haven't checked yet. The teeth are definitely of the plant-eater type; in the early years, prosauropods were thought to be carnivorous because serrated, meat-eating teeth were often found mixed in with the fossils (this caused major taxonomic messes, see Palaeosaurus). I'll work on explaining this better later today. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Tuf-Kat, I added a bit on prosauropod diet. I didn't want to add too much more, as in-depth discussion of prosauropod diet probably belongs on Prosauropod, but I brought up a lot of the stuff where Massospondylus has been brought up specifically. Let me know if this is enough. I didn't want to get too much into analysis of what animals like Plateosaurus ate, because recent studies indicate they were not in the same family, and I'm trying to avoid undue weight, if possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work, Tuf-Kat. The changes look good. I will try to expand the diet section today; I haven't found any material yet on Massospondylus' diet specifically, but there may be papers on Prosauropod diets that I haven't checked yet. The teeth are definitely of the plant-eater type; in the early years, prosauropods were thought to be carnivorous because serrated, meat-eating teeth were often found mixed in with the fossils (this caused major taxonomic messes, see Palaeosaurus). I'll work on explaining this better later today. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support as a WP:DINO member and a contributor; comprehensive and well-written. I am also (hopefully) going to be around for changes and adjustments. J. Spencer (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose→Changed to Support - A well written and comprehensive article, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose for now. I'd like to see the first and second pictures swapped over (IE, put the second picture in the infobox) - the current infobox picture is dark and not even in the correct position according to the caption, whereas the second, artist's recreation picture is much more dynamic and viewable. As soon as that's done, I'll support. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 03:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Images swapped, Spawny. :) I had kept the outdated fossil image in the taxobox because WP:DINO has usually preferred a skeletal photograph in the taxobox over an artist's depiction, but since the skeletal may now be outdated, I've moved it per your request. I'm not fond of the way the taxobox hangs down into the next section now, though. :/ Oh well. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw nah! The infobox hang looks awesome - it fits right into the next section which looks cool. And the picture swap is appreciated. Cheers and I've changed to support. Great article and I hope to see a few more from you... Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Images swapped, Spawny. :) I had kept the outdated fossil image in the taxobox because WP:DINO has usually preferred a skeletal photograph in the taxobox over an artist's depiction, but since the skeletal may now be outdated, I've moved it per your request. I'm not fond of the way the taxobox hangs down into the next section now, though. :/ Oh well. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hasn't been a long time, but this is a very beautiful article. I don't see anything that needs to be changed other than Spawn Man's proposed picture swap. Other than that, well done! bibliomaniac15 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting. If you think of anything, please do mention it, Bibliomaniac. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If having the beginning of "Description" squeezed between the obsolete pic and the infobox is bothering anyone, here's a thought, of which I'm not very confident: There are two areas of the article with 4-6 paragraphs unbroken by images. Perhaps one of those could be relieved with the skeleton pic; keeping it on the left for a change is cool. Or not. (Doesn't bother moi the way it is.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It bothered me. I fixed it now, I think. I didn't like how the taxobox jutted down into the text. But if the picture would be better elsewhere, by all means, move it: I just thought it would be good to illustrate the animal in a quadrupedal pose next to the text which discusses the quadrupedal/bipedal debate. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the location matched the text, which is why the above post was "not very confident". But now, there's an unusually large amount of white space. Here's another article with infobox intruding into text (and a picture on the left also squeezing), but it didn't seem to be objectionable. It seems that the reviewers are fine with the former layout, too. Consider reverting the move? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to revert. But I hate the taxobox messing up the next section. So I won't change that myself. And now we have too many images on one side... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the location matched the text, which is why the above post was "not very confident". But now, there's an unusually large amount of white space. Here's another article with infobox intruding into text (and a picture on the left also squeezing), but it didn't seem to be objectionable. It seems that the reviewers are fine with the former layout, too. Consider reverting the move? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It bothered me. I fixed it now, I think. I didn't like how the taxobox jutted down into the text. But if the picture would be better elsewhere, by all means, move it: I just thought it would be good to illustrate the animal in a quadrupedal pose next to the text which discusses the quadrupedal/bipedal debate. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If having the beginning of "Description" squeezed between the obsolete pic and the infobox is bothering anyone, here's a thought, of which I'm not very confident: There are two areas of the article with 4-6 paragraphs unbroken by images. Perhaps one of those could be relieved with the skeleton pic; keeping it on the left for a change is cool. Or not. (Doesn't bother moi the way it is.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting. If you think of anything, please do mention it, Bibliomaniac. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:
I left some sample edits of some trivial items to fix (sister links belong in external links, punctuation on sentence fragments in image captions, a couple of cite template errors, and if you contact Brighterorange (talk · contribs), he has s script to correct the incorrect endashes in the page ranges on the references).SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We had all the correct dashes in there, until last night. Here's me correcting the dashes on November 23rd. Here's me correcting them on November 7th. No script will prevent subsequent editors from adding incorrect dashes later. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you got them. Can you move the commons links to External links? I don't know how they are normally templated, because I don't link to Commons articles.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I actually prefer keeping all of the external links together in one section at the end of the article, and your method is the way we've done it for every dinosaur FAC. However, recently on Lambeosaurus, that method was "corrected" to this, and we've been directed to Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_find_portals for placement of portal links. I don't like keeping a see also section for one link (especially one which will migrate to the far right of the page and make the see also section look dorky), so I will move all four see also links to external links. Feel free to revert or refactor as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're saying the same thing: I was going to go ahead and do it, but wanted to hear from you first. Since moving the commons links to EL would link only the portal in Seealso, I, too, would put the portal at the end with the external links, instead of as a solo entry in See also. Other articles have done that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've alphabetized the sister links on the right and the regular ELs on the left, but I did stick the portal link at the top, since Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_find_portals indicates portal links are supposed to go higher up than the ELs, and since it's a smaller box it will look strange mixed in with the larger templates. I'm open to better suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're saying the same thing: I was going to go ahead and do it, but wanted to hear from you first. Since moving the commons links to EL would link only the portal in Seealso, I, too, would put the portal at the end with the external links, instead of as a solo entry in See also. Other articles have done that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually prefer keeping all of the external links together in one section at the end of the article, and your method is the way we've done it for every dinosaur FAC. However, recently on Lambeosaurus, that method was "corrected" to this, and we've been directed to Wikipedia:Portal#How_to_find_portals for placement of portal links. I don't like keeping a see also section for one link (especially one which will migrate to the far right of the page and make the see also section look dorky), so I will move all four see also links to external links. Feel free to revert or refactor as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.