Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phosphatodraco/archive1
- 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) 7 October 2022 [1].
Phosphatodraco[edit]
This is the first FAC about an azhdarchid, the pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Z1720[edit]
Non-expert prose review.
- "The specimen was made the holotype of the new genus and species Phosphatodraco mauritanicus in 2003;" Suggest wikilinking holotype
- "In 2020, the paleontologists Claudio Labita and David M. Martill" I don't think "the" is needed here? It sounds weird to me, but it might just be personal preference.
- "A 2015 article by the paleontologist Mátyás Vremir and colleagues" is this Mátyás Vremir? If so, wikilink.
- "The left postexapophysis is placed at the side of the condyle" can postexapophysis be wikilinked to Exapophyses?
- Linked already at "left postexapophysial process (which connected with the preexapophys at the front of the preceding vertebra)" which explains both kinds. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've just added an extra image at the end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Jens[edit]
- It was one of the only known azhdarchids preserving a relatively complete neck, – why past tense, is the specimen lost?
- there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them – maybe add a full stop to avoid that very long sentence?
- As an azhdarchid, it would have had a proportionally long neck, small body, and long limbs. – You already have "Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs, while their bodies and feet were small." elsewhere in the introduction, combine the two?
- Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs – maybe start a new paragraph here? This does not relate to the previous sentence anymore.
- wing-elements – should it be "wing elements"?
- This is larger than azhdarchid such as – "azhdarchids"?
- that were much longer than wider – "wide"?
- low skulls that were much longer than wider, and some that were much shorter, – much shorter than what? I assume it is not supposed to mean "much shorter than wide"? (Aren't they all much longer than wide?)
- Combined, the long wing metacarpals and legs made azhdarchids relatively taller than other pterosaurs – when walking, right? Not taller when flying.
- No doubt, the source just says "The combined long legs and elongated wing metacarpal gives azhdarchids longer limbs and taller frames, relatively speaking, than other pterosaurs (fig. 25.10)", but the caption of that figure specifies they're depicted as standing, so I thought it was ok to add "when standing". FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note that if Kellner's suggestion that the series actually represents vertebrae C3-C8, – is an "is correct" missing here?
- the ratio between the maximum length of the vertebrae/the front width between – "and" instead of "/"?
- is about 4.3 (C5), 4.1 (C6) – "is about 4.3 in C5 and 4.1 in C6"?
- all lying at the same plane – "in the same plane"?
- The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola – add the Kellner number in brackets, as done with the other vertebrae?
- I'm actually a bit unsure about this one. Witton and Naish show what they say is the "complete neck" here[2] based on Kellner, but it actually excludes the posteriormost preserved vertebra, which is the C9 of the original describers. So I don't know if this means they would actually consider it the first dorsal instead? Or maybe it's just because that vertebra isn't preserved in a way that they can include it, since it's only visible in front view in the fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- File:Characteristics of azhdarchid cervical vertebrae.png – indicate the length of the scale bars in the image description on Commons?
- Witton and Naish suggested that their more generalist lifestyle could explain the group's resilience compared to other pterosaur lineages, which did not survive until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids – if I remember correctly this is now somewhat outdated (Longrich study from Morocco)?
- with aquatic environments, such as rivers, lakes, marine, or off-shore – I found this mixture of nouns and adjectives a bit confusing.
- but Witton thought this unlikely due to the terrestrial bias of their fossils – the previous text suggest the opposite, an absence from terrestrial environments?
- There is a disagreement in the literature that is only now being published, so Witton refers to the earlier ideas proposed in his 2008 paper. Only in 2021 does there seem to have been refutation of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. But for now, I just added "supposed" before "terrestrial bias" to show uncertainty. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Their proportions indicate they were not good swimmers on the other hand, and while they could probably launch from water, they were not as good at this as some other pterosaur groups. – Attribute this (and other claims in this paragraph) to Witton? Not sure if it is really universally accepted.
- That's all from me. Nice work as always! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, everything should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, everything should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77[edit]
- The lead is very long for an article of this size Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- As I said at GA, I still have a gripe with Mauretania being described as "Latin for North Africa", because the name Mauretania refers to the land of the Mauri whose kingdom extended only across the western North African coast before becoming a client of the Roman Empire. The statement "Latin for North Africa" is false, it's Latin for "Mauri territory" or "land of the Mauri" etc. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to put down "the specific name refers to the region of Mauretania" and then use a different source not related to Phosphatodraco to quickly say what Mauretania means. I'm curious what others think about this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, or simply say the describers gave this etymology, but other sources specify something else. Got any sources for it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move the refs around, because right now it looks like the describers support the statement "while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco," but tomorrow or day after I'll try to find a better wording if I can Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, or simply say the describers gave this etymology, but other sources specify something else. Got any sources for it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Other than that, support Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Coord note[edit]
I think we're awaiting a source review. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake, please do, otherwise Funk, best add a request at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
- "Alexander W. A., Kellner" – are given name and sure name swapped here?
- Also, in another reference, the names are spelled out: "Kellner, Alexander Wilhelm Armin". This could be consistent.
- Source 26 now is part of a volume (volume 140) that should be added.
- "from the Upper Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco" – "Upper" and "Phosphates" need to be lower case.
Other than these nitpicks, all formatting seems to be ok. All sources are of high quality, and all relevant sources have been cited as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, the above should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent, all looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.