Talk:Opisthocoelicaudia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since my only contribution to this article has been images, it should be ok for me to review this. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this, I'll ping Jens Lallensack. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a bit of copy editing, some of the word placement appears a bit non-English.

No problems with the copyediting. IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The nearly complete reconstructed skeleton represented an individual" What is meant by this? The holotype mount? A cast? A drawn reconstruction?

Reconstructed skeleton mount. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"while the pelvic region was strengthened by an additional sixth hip vertebra" Is that unique to this genus, or to titanosaurs?

Only more derived titanosaurs. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The hips were composed of three bones each, namely the ilium, ischium, and pubis bones." Since this is common to most tetrapods, isn't it a bit odd to point this out?

I'm not sure how to change this without making the sentence quite short. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire sentence is necessary, as long as you make clear that the bones in the following sentences are part of the hips. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I've gotten it now. IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lay embedded in a very hard sandstone" Wasn't it sandstone sediments rather than a sandstone?

Sandstone layers. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect the place the holotype was found to be mentioned closer to the beginning of the discovery section, before info about its transportation from there? Especially since other locations are mentioend earlier, and the reader has no idea of where it is in relation to the excavation locality if it isn't mentioned before.

Rearranged. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"belongs to the Nemegt Formation, the youngest of the three geological formations of the Nemegt Basin. Altan Ula IV is famous for its abundant vertebrate fossils. Other important dinosaur finds from this locality include the troodontid Borogovia[17] and the ankylosaur Tarchia.[18]" Isn't this more relevant under Age and paleoenvironment than under discovery?

Moved down. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The specific name honors Mr. Wojceich Skarzynski" Is "Mr." really needed here?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"specimen ZPAL MgD-Ij48, the holotype" Why not simplify to "holotype specimen ZPAL MgD-Ij48"?

Changed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This tail comes from the Nemegt locality" Is there a difference between Nemegt locality and Nemegt Formation?

The locality is a specific discovery site within a formation. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"According to different authors, the formation is late Campanian to early Maastrichtian, early Maastrichtian, or middle Maastrichtian in age." Perhaps it should be mentioned that these are in the Cretaceous?

Mentioned. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" encased in cross-bedded sandstones" Likewise, if this is sediment, it would just be "sandstone" singular?

Singular. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it known that the animals that made the bite marks on the holotype were scavengers, and didn't kill it?
"with both genera representing outgroups of the Saltasaurinae" Maybe link or explain outgroup.

Explained. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"By now, both Opisthocoelicaudia" Date or "currently" would be better.

Changed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what will you do if Nemegtosaurus is found to be a senior synonym? Perhaps prepare that article so merging will be easy? We had the opposite problem with Apatosaurus, since Brontosaurus was split right during the FAC... Pretty incredible, they had a hundred years to do it.

I'll let Jens do this, because I'm not to sure what we could change. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should mention the diagram here was made by Jens?[1]

Reworded caption a bit. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant on the file page. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. Any problem with the caption on the article? IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so it probably persisted from an adult" What is meant here by persisted? Not sure if this is the correct meaning of the word?

Changed to "probably was created by". IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The name Opisthocoelicaudia means "posterior cavity tail" The translation is mentioned in the intro twice, perhaps it should be removed second time?

Removed first time, makes more sense in text than separate. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Like other sauropods, it would have been characterised by a small head sitting on a very long neck and a barrel shaped trunk carried by four column-like legs." Only described lie this in intro, should also be mentioned in the article.

Done. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine except for the scavenger thing, I guess we'll have to wait for Jens. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've checked the ref and it has no mention of tyrannosaurids of scavengers, so I reworded that sentence. IJReid ^discuss 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll pass this now. Since I did this GA reivew, I may not review at FAC unless it becomes necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FunkMonk and Reid, thank you for the comprehensive review and all the fixes! I think our article is much better now. I'm still waiting for the last book that might contain additional information on the discovery of the skeleton, when I have it we can go to FA I think. To answer the remaining questions:

Unfortunately, Borsuk-Bialynicka (page 2) did not elaborate much on why she things scavengers did the "gnawing traces" and not hunters.
Regarding Nemegtosaurus: If a new skeleton would be found demonstrating that Opisthocoelicaudia was synonymous with Nemegtosaurus, that would be a mess. We would have to move all the content to the lemma Nemegtosaurus. I hope it never happens, as I prefer the name Opisthocoelicaudia (way cooler than Nemegtosaurus). I don't think we can do anything right now to pave the way for a possible merging in the future. It will not happen during FAC, I'm very convenient about that :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list the article for copy edit in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I just listed it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where s.o. pointed out that the IPA was wrong, but the 1st pronunciation at the YouTube link Jens provided was exactly what I would expect for a Latinate word, so I transcribed that. Added the link not as a RS, which it isn't, but to provide readers who don't know IPA with a sound file. The 2nd pronunciation is odd faux Latin, though. If you're going to pronounce caud "cowed", then you might want to pronounce coel "coil", and we'd get into all sorts of arguments over whose Latin pronunciation is preferable. Better to just use the 1st (assimilated English) pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for helping out, Kwamikagami! Sorry for the confusion, the wrong IPA was not pointed out in the GAN but in the current FAC, here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]