Template:Did you know nominations/Sibirotitan

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sibirotitan

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the newly named dinosaur Sibirotitan is only the second sauropod species named from the country of Russia, and one of the oldest titanosauriform sauropod species known from all of Asia?
  • ALT1:... that fossils thought to belong to one individual of the dinosaur Sibirotitan, found in Kemerovo Province of western Siberia, were excavated from 1960s through to the 2010s?

• Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, I apologize if I've done anything incorrectly.

Created by Lusotitan (talk). Self-nominated at 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

• I can review this shortly. Chris857 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Article created 6 days before nom, and is plenty long (~3800 characters)
• Copy edit suggestions:

• Add space after period in "S.astrosacralis"

Done (signing appears to be messing up the formating... this is Lusotitan).

• "noted that it was one of the oldest" -> could we say "noted that Sibirotitan was one of the oldest". I was a little confused wondering if "it" referred to Arkharavia.

Done.

• "refers to star-like way" -> "refers to the star-like way"

Done.

• "Several characters were noted" -> "Several characteristics were noted"? Or is "character" typical for paleontology articles?

"Character" is a standard palaeontologcal term, but if an alternative would increase understanding for a general reader I'm open to suggestions.

• "These include the fashion the tooth crowns align in the jaw..." - I'm not sure what the fix is here, but this seems grammatically wrong

Maybe "...the fashion in which..."?

I think that would be better. Chris857 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "matrixes" -> "matrices"

Done.

• "it's" -> "it is" (manual of style recommends against contractions)

Done.

• "Using one of the dorsal vertebra" -> "Using one of the dorsal vertebrae" (you would say, for example "one of the people", not "one of the person")

Done.

• "and made the suggestion a" -> "and suggested a" (seems a little more active in wording)

Done.

• "might've" -> "might have"

Done.

• The two non-journal references are currently WP:BAREURLS and could use more information (title, author, date, etc.)

Done (by another helpful editor).

• Hook

• Short enough, I prefer the first option, is backed up the journal article

• Because this is your first DYK, no need for you to review a nomination
• Point of technicality for when you created the nomination template, you expanded the article but did not create it (but I don't think it matters to anything in this case).

Article needs some improvements, and I'll come back through tomorrow to check if there is any close paraphrasing. Chris857 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a spot check of the article and can not find any close paraphrasing (but the duplication detector seems to be down). Chris857 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the hook (adding the specification of "titanosauriform" to the last statement) due to a rather major error on my part. Lusotitan (Talk Contributions) 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, this looks good to go, preferring the main hook. Chris857 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)