Talk:Segnosaurus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I noticed a lot of typos, so I'll go over parts of it again... And I'm also going to add dinogloss links. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if something is missing from the gloss that you would like to link to! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of pelvis terms I had not encountered before, such as opisthopubic (also called retroverted pubis), dolichoilia , brachyilia, and probably more. Not sure if they need their own entries or one combined? Or whether they are even unique to dinosaurs? FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will see what I can add. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The known material includes the lower jaw, neck and tail vertebrae, the pelvis, and limb bones. – what about the scapulocoracoid?

Called it "shoulder girdle" in the intro for simplicity, and elaborated a bit in the article: "fused to the coracoid bone, forming the scapulocoracoid". FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the feet had four toes supporting the foot, unlike other theropods. – but not unlike other therizinosaurs, right?

Basal therizinosaurs also had tridactyl feet, so it's a bit complicated to word briefly... I've added "(apart from therizinosaurs, all theropods had three-toed feet)" to the intro and elaborated a bit in the description: "Functionally tetradactyl (four-toed) feet were unique to derived therizinosaurs; basal therizinosaurs and all other theropods had tridactyl feet, where the first toe was short and did not reach the ground." FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more remains of the same dinosaur – "dinosaur" is ambiguous, could refer to the individual or the species; what is the case?

Said "more remains of this kind of dinosaur", though the source is actually a bit vague, it just says "Remains of the same dinosaur were also found". FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the first abdominal rib – Maybe use the less ambiguous term "gastralia" (see reference cited in the gloss). Just linking it to "abdomen" is not very helpful also.

I said "gastral rib", not sure how widespread that term is, but it is hard to find other ways to say it singularly... Belly rib sounds a bit funny. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Gastral rib" or "Gastralium" are both fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a pubis missing the upper portion, and an ischium missing the upper portion – bit repetitive, condense?

Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holotype elements Zanno was able to access included – Why is the mandible not listed?

She didn't have access to it (and other important elements) in 2010, only in 2016. I have now said "elements Zanno was able to access in 2010", is that better? The postcrania are also in dire need of a redescription, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon... Many of the fossils from the old Soviet-Mongolian expeditions seem to be either on perpetual world tours or scattered around in storage where no one can find them... FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

superficially detailed – what does this mean?

Good question, I assume it means it just looks more detailed overall, but I've removed it for now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

with a pronounced arc at the upper front – with "front" I think about the front end of the bone. Perhaps "upper side" or "upper margin"?

It is only at the front part of the dentary though, so just saying upper side would be unspecific. Here is a different attempt, maybe also a bit complex: "with a pronounced arc throughout the upper length of the front end". FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in that that – typo? Listing it here to avoid the predicted edit conflicts.

Yep, fixed, along with many others. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

preaticular bones – prearticular (typo)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

grooves on the front and back edges – reads like if they would have been directly on the edge. Maybe use "near"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Segnosaurus had waves of replacement teeth – not sure if people can understand what is meant with "waves".

I tried with "rows" instead, not sure if it's iffy, but I think the wording in the paper is a bit unclear: "Waves of replacement teeth encompassing two to three crowns are evident on S. galbinensis, as are erupting tooth crowns." I assume replacement teeth within the dentary which have not erupted are meant for the "waves"? FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rows" is not ideal because "tooth row" means something different. I think they are referring to "Zahnreihen" (see the glossary entry, hope I sufficiently explained it there, if not please let me know). "Waves" is a good metaphor for this since the teeth are erupting from the back to the front of the jaws, so the near-empty space (where the erupting tooth is still small) moves forward as in a wave. But it needs more explanation here otherwise people won't get it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how to work it in, I tried with: "had waves of replacement teeth (series of tooth positions that form replacement units)", does it make sense? FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the waves are formed by all teeth that are in use or have just replaced another tooth. What about "replaced its teeth in waves running from back to front of the jaws"? Its difficult to word. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now said this, does it make sense? "Segnosaurus replaced its teeth in waves running from back to front of the jaws, that encompassed two to three erupting crowns." FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phalanx of the first finger – Only one phalanx present in the first finger, or only one preserved?

Both, I believe, the paper says: "The phalangeal formula is unknown, because only the phalanx of the first digit of the left forelimb, supposed first and second phalanges of the second digit, and the ungual phalanx of the third digit were found." As far as I understand, the first finger of theropods only had one phalanx, apart from the ungual phalanx? Should I call it "first phalanx" to acknowledge the ungual phalanx?FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs to be "the first phalanx" then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ungual phalanx vs ungual – be consistent with terms, otherwise people will assume that these variants mean different things.

Just said ungual. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ungual was sharpy curved – Better "This ungual", if it refers to that of the second finger?

Done, and I just noticed it was of the third finger, so changed that too. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This also hits on another issue, the paper says "The ungual is massive, sharply curved, flat laterally, and more pointed than in prosauropods" when describing the toe unguals, but it does not say which particular one, so I don't either... FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lower tubercle for where the flexor tendons attached to the ungual were thick and massive. – "was" instead of "were"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

then only known from the genera Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus – is a "respectively" missing at the end of this?

Yes, it was there originally, removed it for brevity, now back. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

saurischia, coelurosauria, maniraptora need to be capitalized throughout the article.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1996, paleontologist Thomas R. Holtz Jr. found therizinosaurs – I would first state that he considers them to be theropods, as this is the main question discussed in the paragraph; the reader does not necessarily know that coelurosaurs are theropods.

A bit hard to get in, how about "found therizinosaurs to group with oviraptorosaurs in a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian theropods"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better I think. Alternatively, "to group with oviraptorosaurs, a group of coelurosaurian theropods might be even simpler. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At that point, oviraptorosaurs have already been presented, though. Confusingly as a replacement for Maniraptora, which was thought to be paraphyletic in the article that first grouped them (with dromaeosaurs as carnosaurs)... SO I'm thinking it might be a bit confusing to present them again? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithomimisauria – o

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They also discussed the previous ornithischian and sauropod hypotheses – I'm at a loss here; who had claimed they where sauropods or ornithischians? Such hypotheses have not been mentioned in the text, it was only the prosauropod or Saurischia indet. assignment.

I just reworded to "alternative hypotheses", it got a bit complicated... FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell coined the name Therizinosauria in 1997, to elevate the rank of the group. – This sounds as he would have renamed the group, which is not possible. Maybe make clear that this group is valid in addition to Therizinosauridae.

This was a mess on my part, consusing Therizinosauria with Therizinosauroidea. It is a pretty big mess in any case, since Zanno had to redefine the former in 2010 for reasons that are probably out of place for this article. I've just said this instead, which is rather vague: "Russell coined the name Therizinosauria in 1997 for the wider group." As for the latter, Zanno says "Therizinosauroidea[R] was coined by Russell & Dong (1993) as a rank elevation for Therizinosauridae[R] (Maleev, 1954)." FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

basal therizinosauroid from China, Beipiaosaurus, which confirmed that the group – Therizinosauroidea, yet another name? Can this term be introduced or simplified to "Therizinosaurian" or just therizinosaur?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but prior to the middle Barremian; a temporary land bridge connected North America and Europe during the Early Cretaceous, whereafter the landmasses were isolated from each other again. – This means they dispersed as long as that land bridge existed? If so, it could be worded more clearly if you replace "Early Cretaceous" with "until that time".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and other "heavyweight" bidepal dinosaurs were adapted for relatively slow running. – "running" means rapid progression with phases where all feet are elevated above the ground. This is in contrast to "rapid progression was not possible" as stated in the next sentence. Maybe use "progression" instead.

The source says running, though, so wouldn't it be retroactively "correcting" it? It says "These features bear witness to an adaptation to relatively slow running in “heavyweight” forms". FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Running" is just incorrect. It is clear that they did not intend to refer to running in that sense. I think the word has to be replaced by something more general.

Changed to "progression". FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Lautenschlage – r

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a rhamphotheca at the front of the jaws – why not simply "beak" as in previous paragraphs?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the outwards flaring processes of the ilium – ilia

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cursorial adaptations in the hind limbs, including development of functionally tetradactyl feet. – cursorial and tetradactyl need explanations/links.

A definition of tetradactyl was added to the description yesterday when I elaborated on their feet per your suggestion, not explained cursorial too. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to othe herbivorous dinosaurs – r

Done. Sorry for all these typos! FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

skulls and low bite forced – force

Said forces. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

whch has been dated – which

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Period – should not be capitalised

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

poorly cemented gray sands – sandstones?

Not sure, both editions of The Dinosauria just say "poorly cemented, gray sands with intraformational conglomerates, gravels, and gray claystones". Strangely, there was no such info in the original description, I wouldn't have found this if it wasn't covered in The Dinosauria. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

abundance of tutles – turtles?

Hehe, yes... FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erliksaurus hav – o, e --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, yikes. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, Jens; in the caption of the outdated restoration, I say " Therizinosaurs were often depicted this way until they were definitively identified as theropods". Should I instead say "segnosaurs" (in quotation marks), since that's what they were called at the time? Saying therizinosaurs seems a bit anachronistic. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best solution is. Maybe something like "therizinosaurs (then known as "segnosaurs")" is also an option to minimise confusion?

The above issues should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Now only a few more wikilinks are needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the last fixes once the copy-editing is done. In the meantime, do you have any thoughts on length/detail and images? You touched on the classification and diet sections earlier, but how about description? FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length of the description section, I'm of course happy to share my (personal and subjective) thoughts. The whole section was a good read, very detailed but not excessively so, and I didn't get bored while reading. It is certainly on the long end, but all of the information provided is in my opinion relevant for inclusion. If it gets much longer we would have to follow WP:Summary style and moving the detail to a subarticle, which we might need to do with some well-known dinosaurs at some point in the future anyways. So no problem here. My greatest worry in this regard is manpower, and this is not directly related to this specific article here. Over the last years, we increased the effort we put into single articles, especially in the description sections, which become longer and longer. This means that less time can be spent on other articles, and that updating (e.g., after discovery of a new Segnosaurus skeleton) becomes much more work-intensive. Anatomy sections may easily be in need of a re-write if significant additional material gets described; this might be more problematic for description sections than to any other sections, because we cannot simply attach things chronologically, and we need to maintain a consistent level of detail within the section. Also reviewing these things becomes more time intensive. Considering our lack of manpower and the poor condition of most other important articles, I wonder if writing pages of anatomical description for a single genus (highly specific information, often from a single paper only) is time well spent. To be clear, I don't want to discourage anybody from doing this work (which is, of course, valuable). But I also think that we should not enforce this level of detail. If, for example, an article like Opisthocoelicaudia gets nominated at FA, with a description section less than one third of the size of that of Segnosaurus even though the skeleton is much more complete, then this should be considered sufficient. Something I was thinking for some time now: Maybe we should discuss and define project goals within the WikiProject Dinosaurs. What are our priorities? What do we want to achieve in the sort term, what in the long term? Without any obligations and fixed dates, of course, but it can be motivating to have a common set of goals and a roadmap, especially when those goals are finally reached. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's huge inconsistency, though there's another factor that plays in, which is that more complete material does not necessarily mean that published descriptions are more detailed. For example, Gallimimus has much more complete material, but the published descriptions aren't much longer or more detailed than for example the recent one on the single mandible of Segnosaurus, simply because the latter is more unique/diagnostic within its group, I'd assume. So I think it's hard to generalise based on known material, what really matters seem to be both how anatomically unique a specimen is, as well as of course when and by who it was described. If it was described at a time when few other relatives were known, it might have a very detailed description of features that are now known to be wide spread (such as was the case in Dilophosaurus). On the other hand, we have Segnosaurus, whose original description was on the short side, as you can see by much of the info actually being sourced to Zanno's recent papers, rather than the original 1979 description. So the existence of redescritions and full osteology papers plays a role, and it is often the exception rather than the rule that such have even been published, or even will within the next thirty years... Then there is a case like Xixiasaurus, which is basically just known from a skull, but its description section is as long as some recent descriptions of whole dinosaurs, because the paper went into so much detail (it is much longer than the description of Nemegtomaia, which is known from almost the entire skeleton). So how would we get an "equal" level of detail in articles when there is not equal levels of details in the published papers? And should we even worry about that? FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider the inconsistency between articles to be a problem at all, on the contrary. I repeat what I was trying to say: I think that short sections should be allowed even when plenty of material is published (Opisthocoelicaudia had a monography published on it; the description section could be double the size without problem). For me personally, detail in description sections has least priority. Because it is highly specialised, often skipped by readers, and very often a summary of only a single source. And because it is difficult to update: I wanted to say that we would need to avoid inconsistency within an article. For example, if a complete skeleton of Segnosaurus is found (and published in sufficient detail), the description section would easily need to be double the size or longer, as otherwise the old elements are described in greater detail than the new ones. And I agree that such new description papers are rare, but they are frequent enough to keep us quite busy with updating our old FAs. I, as an author, do not necessarily want to allocate that much time for writing and updating description sections (although I admire authors who do). Shorter description sections should not be discouraged, even at FA level. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't get the "within part" first time around, but yeah, this article could be a case of that, where just the mandible and its teeth is more than half of the description, simply because it's the only part of the skeleton that has been redescribed yet (and who knows when/if the rest ever will be). But yeah, I don't think anyone should be forced to write very detailed descriptions, and I think everything that has been featured in recent years has been adequate. It is more the older FAs, where you would be hard pressed to even figure out what distinguishes a taxon from its close relatives, that are problematic... All recent articles cover at least some distinguishing features, which, as we discussed once, should actually be more important to describe than very general features (which is what many older FAs do). FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; distinguishing features should be a requirement, and those old FAs could do well with a bit more content in their description sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, addressed the last comments and wikilinked to Dinogloss some more. Now the last thing I'll do is tweak some of the copy edits. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now all the fixes are done, Jens Lallensack, and I've also added a bit more on nesting (that I removed because I was unsure how relevant it was, but I think it's ok in this shortened form) which might need checking. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Just one point for the recent additions: Though therizinosaurs are not known from the Javkhlant Formation – I think it should be clearly stated that these clutches are from this Formation beforehand. Anyway, I am promoting now, congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. There was one last issue I forgot to bring up with you: this image[1] (and we have others like it) shows a therizinosaur nest that is for some reason attributed to Segnosaurus. That is of course absurd; even if it was from the same formation, there are two other therizinosaurs from there that could be the parent. But there must be a reason why several museums have such eggs assigned specifically to Segnosaurus. Could the mean segnosaurs in general? In that case, that would be strange, because by the time dendroolithid eggs were associated with therizinosaurs, Segnosauridae was already considered a synonym (and was treated as such in the paper that first made the association in 1997). So what to do with the image and caption? I changed the caption to "Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons", in case people would wonder why it was ignored that the museum label said so. But I can find no justification for the assignment. Is the "unclear grounds" part too much or confusing? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy-edit[edit]

Hi all, I'm just beginning a requested GOCE copy-edit to this article; it's a rather lengthy article so the c/e will take a few days for me to complete. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the remaining reviewer issues are related to the classification section, I don't think the article will be very affected by my changes there overall. I probably won't be able to act on them until tomorrow anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]