Talk:Limusaurus

FAC prep

I'm thinking of getting this article to FA.... should have plenty of time to work on it given the vacuum of new avemetatarsalian taxa lately. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool! As a first time nominator, it is probably best to get it to Good Article first (I still do this always before FAC). A peer review can also be nice, but those take forever to get, but I'm sure people at the dinosaur project (including me) would be happy to offer advise here. I also always get an article copy edited, to smooth out the text (make it easier to understand, and veer even more away from copyrighted text), but this may not be as necessary for native Anglophones. It is also good to base the structure closely to that of previously featured dinosaur articles. The phylogenetically closest dinosaur FA would appear to be Carnotaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers... forgot about GA! Will definitely try to get it to GA first. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have journal access? If not, like me, you can do a search for Limusaurus at Google scholar and request all relevant results at the resource request[1] Wikipedia page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I do fortunately have access to most journals, hence my significant expansion of the article today. I will keep that in mind for any Neues Jahrbuch or Zootaxa papers, though.... gah.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see this article light up with so much new data. Great work, Lythronax! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to list every single specimen in the cladogram? I am not sure what this is supposed to convey here, other than yes, they all fell within the same clade, but that should be self-evident, since there is only one species. It is perhaps good to show as evidence in a research paper, but here it is just meaningless. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

IJReid's idea. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I just couldn't really decide which cladogram to include, so I used the one that has the most relevance to Limusaurus specifically. Besides the monophyly of Limusaurus, the cladogram also displays how the younger individuals group together over older individuals. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think it's excessive, but well, maybe others like it. If juveniles grouping together morphologically is an important point, it should be stated explicitly in the article text, but it seems like it goes without saying. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's highly excessive; who is really going to need to know which individual specimens might be related to which other ones? That's pretty irrelevant even to most experts. Lusotitan 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This has reminded me that I need to get this article to FA after I work through the backlog... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks solid to me (apart from the above point), and you at least won't have any problems with complaints about description-length! Was the original description very short, or have you just condensed it a lot? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it was even shorter before. There just hasn't been a PLOS-level osteological description for this taxon (yet...) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Lythronaxargestes, now you're back, I wonder if you want to join as FAC nominator? Jens Lallensack and I are almost done with the further expansion we think (still working on history and taphonomy), and Jens also made this neat skull diagram:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been keeping my hands off this article because both of you are making very good contributions (it's always hard to spot flaws in my own work...), but I'm happy to work on it in the capacity of a co-nominator! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, and in the meantime, of course feel free to do any improvements you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And Lythronaxargestes, the dinosaur death pits paper[3] mentions "Supplementary Data1", but neither I or Jens can find it. Have you come across it? FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I know nothing of the sort either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit on this from the 2016 paper. Now I wonder if there should be more in text attribution to claims min the frame shift debate section? Now it is written in a way where it is hard to deduce who said what, as it is written as "fact" that some of the early claims are irrelevant. But the most neutral way would be to just give the claims chronologically and with attribution so they can speak for themselves as a "dialogue". FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jens suggested we might ask one of the authors, we could try before FAC then. By the way, I wonder if the classification section could (if we can tease this out of the sources) explain how Elaphrosaurus had long been a mystery, and that Limusaurus finally shed light on what it was, and how its missing parts may have looked? And the Noasauridae article now states it is the most completely known member of the group, would be worth mentioning here if it can be sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Clark sent me the supplemental doc 20 minutes after I sent him a mail about it, I just emailed them to Jens, but you don't seem to have your Wikipedia email enabled, Lythronaxargestes? In case you want it also. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what's up with that... it should be! I'll check. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi IJReid, I just noticed the size diagram seems to show Limusaurus as well over 2 metres long, but the only estimates I can find say 1.70. What estimate did you base the diagram on? FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I used the scale bar that Headden provides and scaled if directly from that. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. The papers do say the holotype specimen isn't fully grown and that larger specimens exist, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like there are any published length estimates for the largest specimens. So definitely a blind spot we'll have to sort out before FAC. If we can't find any larger size estimates, I'm not sure whether Headden's can be used, because he clearly depicts the holotype as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The only adult specimen seems to be 15% larger than the holotype. Do we know what 15% larger than 1.70 cm is? My math skills are pretty non-existent... FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would be 1.955. Should that be metres instead? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so just short of two metres. So I guess we need to shrink the largest animal in the size comparison? And what is the smaller individual based on, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

IIRC I used the anatomy and size of the "juvenile" in Figure 1C of Wang ea 2017, which they didn't list as being a specific specimen. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Do you think you could shrink the adult down to about 2 m? Then we should be about ready for FAC. Maybe after we've looked at some attribution in the digit section. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I added this image[4] to the environment section, looks like a good approximation based on the plants mentioned there? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've read through the article again and I think it looks pretty close to FAC, but I have a few issues I'll bring up first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• As mentioned earlier, the classification section has some issues with lack of author attribution, lumping together of different studies and lack of chronological order. This is a bit difficult to untangle the way it is written now, so may need some restructuing.
• The digit homology section has the same issue, but also that some claims are written as fact, when we should instead probably frame it as a debate without taking sides, and just mention who said what and when, with no editorialising.
• Under paleoenvironment, it is written as if only taxa from the Wucaiwan locality are listed. Shouldn't we list the animals from the overall Shishugou Formation as in other articles? Or are they not all contemporaneous?

I'm not sure about this. The Shishugou Formation spans a considerable amount of time. I believe the use of this section is to give a picture of the specific environment that the taxon lived in, so there's not much utility to it if it covers too much. For example, it is definitely not useful to list all of the taxa of the Morrison Formation together. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If they were not contemporaries, that settles it. Is there anything else from the faunal list in the formation article from the locality that is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• And lastly, we should probably see if we can somehow get the supplemental info for that death pits paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• In regard to age, we now only mention how long ago it lived under classification, but I guess we should repeat this under paleoenviroment where such info is usually placed? And since one bone bed was found at another layer than the two others, does that mean it was of a different age? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, better to mention it once again. It is unlikely that the age was significantly different; the pits are stratigraphically separated by 6.5 m while the total thickness of the Shishugou Formation is 400 m; the time difference between the pits was therefore probably much less than 1 million years. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lythronaxargestes and Jens Lallensack, now that Siamosaurus seems safer, we can probably go ahead and nominate this if you feel ready. I think there's still a bit that could be structured more clearly in the classification section, but it'll probably be a very long FAC judging on how slow the process has become, so we probably have plenty of time to fix after the nomination has begun. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Now nominated, and feel free to add your names! FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, since all I've done on this article is to add a few images, I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to offer a review. So first some initial thoughts. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• You say that it is "traditionally considered as the basal member of the group Ceratosauria", but does the source really say "traditionally"? I'm not sure how a hypothesis that has existed for less than ten years can be considered a "tradition". If the source doesn't say it, something like "generally" or "originally" would probably be more appropriate.

Done, changed to "originally". Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think it should be mentioned in the intro that the digit-homology issue was relevant to bird evolution in the intro, that's at least why there was so much fuzz about it back then.

Added, but it feels a little awkward. Will revise further. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think specimen numbers can be unbolded, bold should not be used in the prose outside the intro (apart from in cladograms). I know it is seen in some other articles, but I think it's only one user who does this, and it is not used in promoted articles.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• The image style guide says that depicted subjects should preferably face the text[5], so for example the image under Paleobiology should probably be moved to the right. Then it won't clash with the headers either. And well, it just looks better...

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've thought a bit about whether the Headden skeletal should be swapped with the photo in the taxobox, but I'm not sure. The photo is a bit unclear, but of course, it shows the actual holotype (which should probably be noted in the caption). There is also a lighter photo of the slab on Commons[6], but it is in lower res, so I'm not sure which is best.
• There is a diagram explaining the frame-shift hypothesis on Commons[7], but I'm not sure if it would be too supportive of the largely discredited (I think?) theory to include it here.

I don't think the diagram is meant to represent the frameshift hypothesis at all... it seems more like BDR, or a version of lateral shift. Either way, perhaps it could be added in the context of the discussion about BDR? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Might as well shove a to-do list for issues about images under here. Limusaurus has three phalanges on III, yet the diagram under Paleobiology only shows two. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, do you want to take a stab at modifying it, or should I? What would be a good reference image? Too bad this dinosaur wasn't published on in a CC license, kind of scant on good images... FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I could take a crack at it. Guinard's teratology paper has a good diagram of the forelimb in fig. 3. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What would be the correct way to do the attribution for the modified version on Commons? Still not quite clear on how the system works. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You can just add "modified by" after Conty's name in the author field (but I rarely even do that when I modify images). Might also be a good idea to add a citation for what the final image is based on... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I also mark it as public domain? Since the paper I referenced is paywalled, after all.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you modify the Commons image, it should stay the same license. If you make a new one from scratch, you can decide for yourself, but the image can't be identical to the one in the paper, because then there would be a copyright issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated forelimb diagram

Thanks for the guidance, FunkMonk; hope this is sufficient. I don't know of any good figures of the pectoral girdle, nor measurements to verify proportions. Not sure about articulation either, but I think it's clear that the old image had a broken elbow.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, if the proportions fit the published diagrams, but isn't the lower arm flexing slightly in the wrong direction? Compared with for example this skeletal:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, good point. Perhaps this is because the humerus is not in lateral view. The diagram does not specify. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Modified to use humerus from ontogeny paper skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks better! By the way, you don't have to upload as a new file every time you modify, you can just upload a new version on top of the old image ("Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the file page). FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, TIL! I'll add it to the article promptly, then. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Since other image comments are going here ... I've been remaking the size comparison. I'll upload the current one here (shows the adult size), but I was wondering if I should include juvenile sizes too? IJReid ^discuss 19:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not, but aren't several juveniles of different sizes known? How would we decide what size to show? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a skeletal what is presumably a stage I juvenile provided in the paper alongside the adult. Probably the best source for the juvenile. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New chart looks nice, but maybe the silhouettes shouldn't overlap? Seems a bit like the guy is about to be castrated! FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that, thought it looked funny XD. I guess I can shift it over a bit to give him some breathing room. (Juvenile silhouette has been added) IJReid ^discuss 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it now, how does it look Lythronaxargestes? IJReid ^discuss 21:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me at least, I had the same issue with Nemegtomaia yesterday, so I just "flipped the bird"... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Also looks good to me, except the adult could perhaps be shifted a little further right so that the premaxilla doesn't come into contact with the hand..... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

One bird is now flipped. I left the other facing the original way though. (PS: In GIMP you can make the grids easily, but for some reason this grid is rendering oddly, should I make the lines thicker?) IJReid ^discuss 21:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps thicker lines would be a good idea. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

All done. Any more comments on it? IJReid ^discuss 22:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

None from me. Thanks for helping out! Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think it would maybe make more sense to explain the hypothesis that Limusaurus and Guanlong were trapped in sauropod footprints in a marsh under the section about taphonomic implications?

I agree. Moved. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• More to come as I read the article.
• The discussion of gastroliths under groewth belongs somewhere in the paleobiology section, it is not descriptive of the animal's morphology.

The entire section beginning with "Adult specimens are characterized by..."? Either way, moved to the "feeding ecology" section; moved histology out since it didn't quite feel so relevant. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• "a hitherto unknown feature in non-coelurosaurian theropods" Since hitherto means until now, this statement is wrong (due to Chilesaurus), so should say something like "until the discovery of Limusaurus" or something.

Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fenestrae, morphology, and type species should be linked.

Linked the first occurence of each term in the article. Please let me know if more links are needed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• You mention the loss of teeth twice in the description, should perhaps be restricted to the growth section.

Only found one occurrence, removed it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• You may want to explain "articulated", I have been asked during FACs.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Like the holotype and paratype" You have not mentioned there is a paratype prior to this. I guess it is the other specimen in the original block? If so, this could also be mentioned in the taxobox photo caption (holotype and paratype).

Hm, since it is not explicitly named as the paratype anywhere in the lit either, I changed it to "second specimen". Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, still think holotype should be mentioned in the taxobox caption. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "however, recent research places" Words like "recent" and "presently" should be avoided; this article may stand for decades from now.

Would "more recent" be a viable alternative? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That is the same problem. I think it is better to just write exact dates for different studies. "Recent" will mean nothing down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, specified/reworded to remove references to "recent". Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with "more recent" and "subsequent". Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "most similar to that of Jeholornis." Say what kind of animal that is.

Went with "avialan". Would "bird" be preferable? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "of the available specimens of Limusaurus specimens" Repetitive.

Oops. Corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reading through the digit homology section, I see no mention of the controversy about bird origins that this was thought to have implications of and was pretty controversial at the time, and how those implications are moot now that Limusaurus appears to have been a dead end. This needs to be explained, especially now that it is mentioned in the intro.

Added discussion. Does it need to be more extensive or will this suffice? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but if any of the sources say so, perhaps state clearly that Limusaurus' hands now seem to be irrelevant to bird evolution? I would personally also mention names of the researchers involved and dates of publications for context (especially when it comes to controversies), but I don't think it is necessarily required. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The former: it is more-or-less stated in the Precedings paper, though I'm unsure where it should be placed. The latter: added a few. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Added. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Words like basal and plesiomorphic also need explanation.

Added explanations. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "gastroliths, and feeding ecology" Gastroliths are part of feeding, so I'm not sure they need mention in the title?

Oh, that's true. Removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• You should state specifically when this animal lived and how approximately long ago this was under the Paleoecology.

Added in the first paragraph under Paleoecology. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why do you write full binomials under paleoecology, when the rest of the article mainly uses genus names?

I was following the source, in which the list of tetrapods is at the species level. Either way, removed specific names for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Has it been suggested exactly what kind of plant matter it fed on?

None of the papers mention any specific sort of foliage. However, there is lots of information available about the Shishugou's flora. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned flora in for example the Baryonyx paleoecology section myself (where I also dumped the taphonomic info), so it can certainly be done, especially since it is even more relevant to an article about a herbivorous animal? Nice to have a description of the environment in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, added flora & further climate details. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Very nice, perhaps specify which kind of plants? For example say "Araucaria trees", etc. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, missed this. I've done it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Citations are not needed in the intro, which is only supposed to be a summary of the article body, where the citations are found.

Removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Words like "notably" and "remarkable" are too hyperbolic, should be avoided. Words like "significant" etc are more appropriate.

Removed/reworded occurrences of these words. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• When these issues are fixed, I'm ready to pass the article. Perhaps IJReid has some further comments, now he's here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Since its been suggested, I'll add a few comments. Mainly, there are a few sections that could have more information, the Discovery, and Classification. The Discovery section should include things like the history of classification and basically anything that is moderately outdated. The Classification could go more in depth into the features that support the classifications. Basically just a bit more information in these sections should be good.

Hm, alright. Will do. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Though, not entirely sure if "history of classification" fits under the "discovery and naming" banner..... FunkMonk, what do you think? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The sections should definitely be kept separate, but if more details about excavations and what makes it recognisable as a ceratosaur/abelisaur etc. could be added, that might be nice. I personally only put classification info in history sections if it is very general outdated stuff ("this dinosaur was first thought to be a crocodile", etc.), or what species that were at one point classified in the genus, but when it comes to more nitty gritty stuff ("this has been considered either a basal ceratosaur or a more derived one"), I'd say it goes in the classification section. See for example Stegoceras. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Added both excavation info and ceratosaurian synapomorphies. Quite unsure on the latter due to abundance of jargon and length. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I usually just mention the most important, and least technical features, while noting these are just some of them, by saying "such as". So you can cut it down if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Cut down accordingly. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Only other point, I think you confused the Deltopectoral crest with the Humeral head in the arm diagram. The Humerus should be articulating with the scapulacoracoidat the very end of the shaft, and not at that expansion. IJReid ^discuss 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Drat, I've unfortunately lost the original file.... this one may have to take some Photoshop wizardry, which is beyond my skill set..... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You think you might be able to fix it, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure. I'll get it done now. IJReid ^discuss 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, just need an OK from Lythronaxargestes as per guidelines for these things. IJReid ^discuss 19:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks splendid. Many thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, I think this is passes GA now. Nice work! For FAC, you might want to read through the entire article again and see how you can make the text more understandable for lay-readers, perhaps simplify some things, and maybe explain more things. But the most obvious issues have been dealt with during this review. Some jargon is unavoidable in an article like this, but it's fine as long as it is properly "translated" and explained for layreaders. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article! This was a very informative experience. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limusaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230100252/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-systematic-palaeontology/article/div-classtitlethe-phylogeny-of-ceratosauria-dinosauria-theropodadiv/CE0932847D5D62629D02466765A5A455 to https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-systematic-palaeontology/article/div-classtitlethe-phylogeny-of-ceratosauria-dinosauria-theropodadiv/CE0932847D5D62629D02466765A5A455

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)