Talk:Eolambia

Eolambia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 28, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eolambia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, make straightforward copyedits and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little drive-by comment, the osteology paper mentions a specimen (CEUM 34447) from the same bonebeds, which may be a different hadrosaur taxon or an aberrant Eolambia, perhaps worth a mention under ecology or in history? FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about that! It seems appropriate for the Paleobiology section; thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of depends on what you want to emphasise, whether it is an aberrant Eolambia, or another taxon... If both, maybe history is the best compromise... Or spread it out to different sections. I only noticed the specimen because I was reading through the captions on Commons, and realised it would have to be taken out of the Eolambia category... FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned under Discovery and naming. Nice opportunity to shift the images around a little. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good juxtaposed with the holotype dentary, really shows the difference! As a side note, if the vertically long images (which you have many of) take too much space and are too intrusive, you can add the "upright" parameter to them. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I need to remember that one... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Description section is dense with technical words, which is common with all these dino articles. Question is, can we substitute any more accessible words? So would you consider "upper jaw" synonymous with "maxilla", in which case several "maxilla's can be written in plainer English...

I feel that is problematic, because there are other elements in the so-called "upper jaw" - the premaxilla, certainly, perhaps the nasals as well if we count the entire snout region. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair point. I didn't think there'd be much that could be done in this section without compromising accuracy...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~...which constitutes the majority of the lower jaw. --> "which constitutes most of the lower jaw. "?~~

Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

err..@Lythronaxargestes: you might not have saved the edit...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad :) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term "styracosterna(ns)" gets dumped in the text without explanation.~~

It's linked, though; would the same go for the introduction of "iguanodonts" in the previous section? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True - I guess a link is fine for folks with some knowledge of dinosaurs and/or cladistics, which I suspect will be the vast majority of folks reading it. I also suspect diverging into an explanation is disruptive to the flow of the article. However, have a look at Corona Borealis and see the segment on "37 stars brighter than or equal to apparent magnitude 6.5" - I have added a footnote with an explanation of that as it is not integral to the article but helps with context if someone is unfamiliar with the term. It might be a solution to have a footnote noting that how these two clades encompass Eolambia or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A nice idea, but I'm unsure on the execution. I don't know what I can put besides their literal phylogenetic definition, which I feel would be equally abstruse. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken...anyhoo, not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~... the best-preserved sacrum preserves seven vertebrae...~~ ~~- try to avoid two "preserve" in the one sentence.~~

Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd link or define basal at first instance.~~ oops missed that one...

First link is present under the limb section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very thorough and interesting article. Very little tinkering needed...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, do you have any further comments? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- nice job and definitely within striking distance of FA-hood too. The image licencing of PLOS is a bonanza I hadn't realised too.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these clades from?[edit]

The bottom two cladograms at the end of Subsequent research, derived from Gates et al. (2018) - doi:10.7717/peerj.5300 - feature positions labelled Hadrosauriformes, Iguanodontidae, Hadrosauroidea and Hadrosauromorpha. However, these clade names are not provided on the original cladograms (Fig. 22). At least some of these clades have also not been defined phylogenetically in the text, so we can't be placing them where they are currently, unless we cite another source. To demonstrate the incongruence, the text underneath Fig. 22 reads "...other early diverging hadrosauroids (Altirhinus, Barilium, Proa, (Bolong + Jinzhousaurus)...when Choyrodon is coded as possessing an antorbital fenestra". However, in our corresponding cladogram, all of these genera are clearly positioned outside Hadrosauroidea. Iguanodontidae is also labelled on the right hand cladogram, yet it appears not to have been mentioned in the text of the paper at all. Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus are called iguanodontians immediately prior to the aforementioned quote (which would relate to the left hand cladogram, anyway), but Iguanodontia does not equal Iguanodontidae. So it's quite clear to me that these clade positions are unsupported by the reference. These are also the most obvious examples that stuck out to me, so it's quite possible that the exact positions of other clades are also not inferable from this paper. Are others also unable to corraborate these positions using that paper, or is there something obvious that's totally flying over my head? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this, but sometimes such info can be found in the supplemental material, if there is any for these papers. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I've checked them, but I don't think there's anything there. A bunch of phylogenetic matrices and a picture. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history suggests that LittleLazyLass added the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight the inclusion of Hadrosauroidea in the first cladogram was very dumb, yes. I just put the clade names where their definitions place them, it did not occur to me that they would need additional references. Hadrosauromorpha needs to stay as it's necessary for collapsing that part of the cladogram. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]