Talk:Spinophorosaurus

Thagomizer

Obligatory link to thagomizer -- I'm not sure just what sort of source we'd need to include it in the article. -- 201.53.124.69 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom holtz referred to it as a thagomizer in the comments at the SV-POW blog post about it, but I'm not sure that meets the criteria for references. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 00:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to give this one a go! Enwebb (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

general comments

• I can tell already that there won't be very much to say about this excellently written article.
• Copyvio check-- Done; no apparent copyvio
• This led to the description of new genera such as the hadrosaur Ouranosaurus from Lower Cretaceous rocks. I read this thinking that that the sentence was going to keep going and list more than one genus, given that you used the word genera. Can you include another example? Or change it to ...the description of new taxa such as the hadrosaur genus Ouranosaurus...?

Reworded. Ouranosaurus is by far the most famous. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• An official excavation permit was promised to the museum in 2006; in return, the museum was to build and equip a new school for local Tuareg children in the settlement of Injitane who promised the excavation permit?

Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• related to this: On the same day, Echika revealed to the team that the first skeleton had been excavated by a Spanish group with his permission. He promised to lead the team to another fossil site located around 80 kilometres (50 mi) south of Agadez at the cliff of Tiguidit as compensation. There, the team opened camp on April 5 after the discovery of sauropod bones, which would later be confirmed to represent the rear part of a Jobaria skeleton. Excavation ended on April 8, when the team was forced to leave the largest block, a pelvis of more than half a tonne, in the field until the next season. To discourage others from collecting the Jobaria fossil, an explosive dummy was fabricated and attached to the fossil, labeled with a warning in Spanish.[1]:68–73 The German team retrieved the block the next season in 2008; the PALDES team had canceled their excavation plans following the outbreak of the Tuareg rebellion (2007–2009).
  • while it does add some "color", I fear that you are straying from the topic of the section, which is the discovery of the Spinophorosaurus fossils. I would consider removing or greatly condensing this chunk of text.

Hmmm, I think it has a role in conveying the interplay between the two teams, as the history section is largely about the expeditions. The Jobaria business was a direct result of what happened with the first Spinophorosaurus skeleton after all. Some details could maybe be pruned, but I'll see what Jens says. For example "There, the team opened camp on April 5 after the discovery of sauropod bones, which would later be confirmed to represent the rear part of a Jobaria skeleton. Excavation ended on April 8, when the team was forced to leave the largest block, a pelvis of more than half a tonne, in the field until the next season." could simply become "There the team found the rear part of a Jobaria skeleton, but was forced to leave the largest block in the field until the next season." FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent suggestion. Shortened it accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• ...but were to be managed by the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle, in Niamey, Niger, in the future so did they reach an agreement with the government or something? This is a little unclear, and I am unfamiliar with the politics of fossils. You could add an explanatory clause here: "but, according to the terms of an agreement between x and y, were to be managed by the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle, in Niamey, Niger, in the future."

Specified. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• might be nice to add a short, in-text explanation after the term "Photogrammetry"

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems we had an edit conflict, I had written "(where photos are taken of an object from different angles to 3D map them)", how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds better! But maybe the "to 3D map them" is a bit redundant, should this be left out? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• The two specimens were considered to belong to the same taxon since the skeletal elements that overlapped between them were identical, and because of the proximity of the skeletons in the same stratigraphic layer. I felt like this was going to be followed by a sentence that they are no longer considered the same taxon. If not the case, perhaps consider using a present tense verb here.

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• ...Spinophorosaurus is one of the few sauropods preserving a complete neck I feel like this is odd phrasing. Perhaps instead it could be "Spinophorosaurus is one of the few sauropods whose fossils contain a complete neck" or something

Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• You define scapula with an in-text explanation twice. Just the first occurrence is fine.
  • Same with humerus

both done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I really like the side-by-side cladograms

It's a nice way to fill out that huge white space left by cladograms too. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Two terms were overlinked (thagomizer and suture (anatomy)) but I fixed them using this script

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Consider linking/adding an explanation after "autapomorphy"

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• is there any speculation about its diet based on morphology and teeth?

All that has been published is that it might have been a high-browser, based on its bodyplan. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I have for right now!

Thanks, will start fixing stuff soon, and will ping my co-nominator, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have one thing I've also thought about, maybe the last paragrapgh about two toed tracks goes into too much detail? Maybe we should just say something like "two-toed tracks that were originally thought to have been left by paravian theropods (such as droameosaurs or troodontids), but were subsequently interpreted as having been produced by swimming theropods" or similar. Not sure how important the naming and other details are in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is not precisely pertinent to this article and could be shortened. Your suggestion reads good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Now shortened, and added photogrammetry explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Enwebb: Thanks a ton for reviewing this! We should have addressed everything by now, please have a look and let us know if there are any further issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably just a few more things--

• Make sure date format is consistent in refs. Looks like dmy is the standard, but the first ref is using a different date format. I didn't look at every single ref, just noticed that one.

Removed exact date from the book, which shouldn't need it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Consider adding citation to temporal range in speciesbox

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• all images licensed appropriately Y

I've concluded that this fine article meets (and indeed exceeds) the six GA criteria. Pass! Enwebb (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Outdated names of UoM?

Isn't metric ton, short ton and all the rest of it now outdated for scientific purposes? In this scientific article I suggest we simply use tonne. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

New paper and skeletal

There's a very nice skeletal reconstruction + size comparison of Spinophorosaurus in this paper about neck mobility: [1]. Somewhat puzzlingly, it's missing the tail spikes... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, the lacking spikes were anticipated by a conference abstract, see the section on them:[2] Seems there's a bit of work to do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense - same lead author on this paper as the abstracts... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now added some new images. The old skeletal has been placed in the tail spikes section for historical purposes (will probably be renamed at some point), and the taxobox image has been replaced with one that cropped out the tail spikes, but was also in higher res. The life restoration will probably need an update down the line, once a paper dealing explicitly with the tail spikes/clavicles is published (or maybe it should be replaced entirely, the posture is also off now). The new paper doesn't address it past the diagram. Jens Lallensack and I will try to add the new info, but any help is of course welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)