Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ohmdenosaurus/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2023 [1].

Ohmdenosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little-known dinosaur whose carcass underwent a long and complicated journey before being deposited in the open ocean. As the first description of this genus is in German, this article is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive account of the topic in English. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Any chance of a location map show where the specimen was found?
Found and added one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only species is Ohmdenosaurus liasicus." Could that be 'the only known species' or similar?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3–4 m (9.8–13.1 ft)". The conversion seems to be spuriously accurate.
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and contained abundant and well-preserved fossils". 'contains'?
Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transported by predators or water currents by at least 100 km". i am unsure that "by" is necessary.
It isn't, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1862, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen". You sure about that date? (Seventy-four years before he opened the museum.)
Oops! I made a mistake, it was 1892! Good spot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small remains of fish", Does this mean the remains of small fish, or small fragments of the remains of fish?
The latter, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This makes it one of the earliest sauropods known at the time." Known at what time?
The time of first description. I hope I made it clear now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the only fossil of a terrestrial saurian known from the Toarcian". Is this still the case?
No, as above, hopefully fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing, Gog. I hope I addressed all your comments so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff, thanks. A fascinating article. I don't actually have anything else to query, so supporting. Fine work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger[edit]

  • Exhibited in a local museum, the Urweltmuseum Hauff, it caught the attention of... Perhaps rephrase to "While being exhibited in local museum,.."
I fear that "while" implies that there was a time when the fossil was not exhibited, but it always was. I tried to formulate it differently, please see if this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and later also to extract oil. "and later to also extract oil."
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild recognised the specimen as a misidentified dinosaur fossil, borrowed the specimen for study, and carried out additional preparation. He recognised it as a dinosaur fossil, "misidentified" is redundant here.
Yes of course, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fossil, which has no specimen number, consists of .. Is it still the case that it has no specimen number?
Still no specimen number as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had long been part of the museum's collection and was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.. Suggest rephrasing to "It had long been part of the museum's collection after it was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.."
I prefer "having been", and changed accordingly, what do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having been" works even better, thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rock indicates that the fossil stems from the Unterer Schiefer.. "comes from", or "was found in". "Stems" has a different connotation that doesn't fit here.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and in this case might have been preserved thanks to the impregnation of calcium salts. Impregnation? What is that supposed to mean here?
Ah, "impregnation with", probably. Changed. Impregnation means that the fossil is soaked with calcium salts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume impregnation is the technically correct term here, although it carries vastly different meaning for most people. Since I can't think of a good way to rephrase it, though, I won't suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "absorption" which I think should mean the same, does this work better? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..the area of the ankle that experienced the highest stresses in the living animal,.. "the area..that experiences the highest stresses in living animals,.."
Changed to "in life", hope that works as well (as I'm not sure it should be generalised to other living animals). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, if its meant to refer to sauropods specifically there... well, I don't know enough about how certain that is a hypothesis to really suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wild only said it would have been the area of highest stress in the living animal, so I am careful with implying that it is the same in every other animal. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae has been demonstrated to be polyphyletic (does not form a natural group) and therefore fell out of use. -> "Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae was demonstrated to be polyphyletic (not forming a natural group) and therefore fell out of use."
Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there no cladograms in the Classification section?
There is only a single published cladogram that would qualify. All other studies decided to not include this taxon because it is too fragmentary, and this still seems to be consensus (one other study included it but found it to be instable). I think not including the cladogram would maybe better reflect the scientific consensus, and more honest to our readers. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a cladogram, both for the normal reasons and also because the Classification section as it currently is, is something of a wall of unrelieved text. A cladogram adds variety and illustration. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Can we have your opinion please? I am undecided. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, if I had written the article, I would have included it just for completism/context, but I can see it may be a bit "undue", as most readers would just see that as the final word. Is it this "In 2020, Oliver Rauhut and colleagues included Ohmdenosaurus in a phylogenetic analysis, but found it to be unstable as it was placed in different positions in the tree by different variants of the analysis"? If so, could be interesting to at least state the different positions in prose? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the cladogram from the 2022 article (the last mentioned in the "Systematics" section). I think I will include it, then, also because this study has a whole paragraph of discussion on Ohmdenosaurus, so it is clearly relevant. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now added the cladogram, but it looks a big ugly. Any ideas for a better layout? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some close-ups or other angles of the fossil that could be used to fill up the white space? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Not very good ones because the specimen is behind glass in poor light. I will see what I can come up with later. Alternatively, I wonder if it is possible to get the cladogram in a box so that it behaves like an image, with text flowing around? Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure someone at WP:treereq should be able to do what. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..the tibia and ankle were found in articulation,.. I suggest "the tibia and ankle were still articulated when found," and link articulated if there is an appropriate article/section.
Yes, did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life restoration needs alt-text.
Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, good work. It is comprehensive, which (IMO) is the most important thing when it comes to obscure fossil genera. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to hear that! Thank you for your review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since all that is left is the cladogram, which I do not consider an absolute requirement, I am going to Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Morrison Man[edit]

Just leaving a quick note here that I'm stepping in to review the article. Currently working through it, and should be able to provide my comments within a day. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...it might have been close to - I'd change this to something akin to "it might have been closely related to", I think it would read more clearly
Fixed, and also updated to reflect the most recent study. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the only dinosaur fossil known from the shale. - Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale seems to indicate otherwise. Maybe you're referring to the fact that it’s the only named dinosaur fossil from the shale?
That article is highly problematic because it contains huge amounts of WP:OR. The other dinosaur fossil listed there is based on a study from 1956, which predates all Ohmdenosaurus sources (which clearly say Ohmdenosaurus is the only dinosaur fossil so far). While I do not have that 1956 article (which is somewhat obscure), the WP article states this alledged dinosaur fossil is a sauropodiform, but that clade was only named much later, so this information cannot possibly be in the cited 1956 soure. I therefore want to ignore it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the problematic nature of the article, apologies!
  • ...that preserves - Should "preserves" not be in past tense here?
Hmm, I don't think so, since the geodes are still present? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course! Oversight on my end
  • ...determined the dinosaur fossil - I'd add "that" inbetween "determined" and "the"
Added, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Lias, an old name for the Lower Jurassic of Europe - Was this term used unilaterally or only in certain areas? Might be a nice addition to include if it was specific to a certain area.
Hmm, yes, only in Europe, but I already mention that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider this fixed then
  • Between tibia and astragalus… - “Between the tibia and astragalus”?
Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...cartilage covering - I think this would read better if changed to “cartilaginous covering”
OK, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sauropodomorpha consists of the quadrupedal sauropods, - Were some early sauropodomorphs not bipedal? I might be misremembering, but if so it might be good to include something like “of the mostly quadrupedal sauropods”.
Yes, but I only say "quadrupedal sauropods", and all sauropods were quadrupedal as far as we know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pose an issue in clarity either when reading through it again, so thats good!
  • ...probably needs to be - Should “needs” here not be in past tense?
I don't think so, because this is what Wild stated, and from his perspective, it should be present tense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohmdenosaurus is the only known dinosaur fossil from this formation - Same concern as listed in my second comment.
See reply above.

Here are all of my comments so far. I should mention that this was an absolute joy to read! The Morrison Man (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, and that is great to hear! I addressed all of the above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left some comments on your replies, but overall I do believe that everything has been addressed properly. Good work! The Morrison Man (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

I presume that File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is not literally ripped off the source, yes? I wonder if File:Ohmden in ES.svg can be made a little larger. Only one image has ALT text. Image disposition appears to be reasonable.

Regarding sources, reviewing this version. I presume the inconsistent identifiers (DOIs, bibcodes etc.) are due to the sources having different identifiers (e.g not all sources have an ISSN?). It seems like all sources are reliable and suited for their tasks. Were these sources consulted and ruled out before application? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To your points:
  • File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is my own work, based on a photograph I took myself.
  • The map size looks ok on my screen, do you think that the text is too small to read? I am worried that this map in larger will look ugly, but it is not a strong opinion of course.
  • I added some more ISSNs where I could find them. But aren't these redundant for journal articles anyways if we have a doi? From my understanding, only (newer) journals have ISSN, so the book chapters don't.
  • Yes, I believe I incorporated all available sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's a pass, noting that I didn't do much spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "world's major fossil Lagerstätten (fossil deposit of exceptional importance)." I have always seen Lagerstätte used to mean fossil deposits which are important specifically because of their exceptional preservation, rather than important generally. Is this wrong?
    • Yes, the definition is "fossil deposit of exceptional importance". However, there is a type of fossil Lagerstätte called "Konservat Lagerstätte", and their importance indeed lies in their exceptional preservation (and incidentally, the Posidonia Shale is one of them).
  • "In 1892, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen that preserves the original body outline, revealing that ichthyosaurs possessed dorsal fins." This does not seem relevant.
    • This is what made the Hauff collection and the Posidonia Shale famous. It was a big discovery in Paleontology. This is why I included it to provide the reader with some background. But if you think it should be removed, I will do.
  • "As all sauropods, Ohmdenosaurus was a quadrupedal (four-legged) herbivore". "As all" sounds wrong to me. Is it USEng?
    • Changed to "Like all", hope that works.
  • "Based on this evidence, Wild concluded that the specimen must have been transported and deposited twice: once from its place of death to the first site of deposition near the coast, where the weathering took place". I do not understand the logic here. Why should the specimen not have died at its site of deposition near the coast? This needs clarifying.
    • Hmm, the source doesn't say this explicitly, but the point is that the specimen was partly covered by sediment. This means it was at a place where active and significant sediment deposition takes place, maybe somewhere in a river, but certainly not a place where the animal would spend its day voluntarily. So it probably died somewhere else and was washed to this place, if only by a relatively short distance. I added a hint to the sediment cover, but I guess this will not be enough, but I can't think of a way to put this that does not go too much into WP:Synth. I will try to think tomorrow about how to write this more clearly.
  • No change needed, but it seems extraordinary that a predator dragged its prey 100 km. Do you know whether there are definite cases of this behaiour?
    • I agree that it seems a bit unusual. I do not now about other examples. But apparently, Wild thought that transportation of the heavy bone by water currents was even more unlikely (and he did not discard that option). Since it is the only dinosaur found in the Shale, while hundreds of complete skeletons of marine reptiles were found there, it must have been an extraordinary process that brought it there.
  • Looks fine. Just a few minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent, thank you for your review. One point I still need to solve, the rest are adressed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope I now solved the remaining issue. All addressed now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am sceptical on two points. I do not see why the body had to be moved twice. Plenty of land animals hunt in intertidal zones. I also find both explanations for the movement of the body 100 km dubious. A storm surge as a result of the collapse of a natural dam of a large lake seems more likely. Of course, you have to go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2023 (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/Ohmdenosaurus/archive1&oldid=1176948458"