Talk:Nemegtomaia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nemegtomaia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Nemegtomaia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 8, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
February 22, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 13, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the oviraptorid dinosaur Nemegtomaia (pictured) brooded its eggs?

Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mongols Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 January 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Orphaned references in Nemegtomaia[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nemegtomaia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sullivan2006":

From Deinocheirus: Sullivan, R.M. (2006). "A taxonomic review of the Pachycephalosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithischia)". In Lucas, Spencer G.; Sullivan, Robert M. (eds.). Late Cretaceous vertebrates from the Western Interior. Vol. 35. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. pp. 347–366. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
From Pachycephalosauria: Sullivan 2006
From Tarbosaurus: Sulliban, R.M. (2006). "A taxonomic review of the Pachycephalosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithischia)." Pp. 347-366 in Lucas, S.G. and Sullivan, R.M. (eds.), Late Cretaceous vertebrates from the Western Interior. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 3.

Reference named "jerzykiewiczrussell1991":

From Tarbosaurus: Jerzykiewicz, Tomasz; Russell, Dale A. (1991). "Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin". Cretaceous Research. 12 (4): 345–377. doi:10.1016/0195-6671(91)90015-5.
From Deinocheirus: Jerzykiewicz, T.; Russell, D.A. (1991). "Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin". Cretaceous Research. 12 (4): 345–377. doi:10.1016/0195-6671(91)90015-5.
From Avimimus: Jerzykiewicz, Tomasz; Russell, Dale A. (1991). "Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin". Cretaceous Research. 12 (4): 345–377. doi:10.1016/0195-6671(91)90015-5.
From Alioramus: Jerzykiewicz, Tomasz; Russell, Dale A. (1991). "Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin". Cretaceous Research. 12 (4): 345–377. doi:10.1016/0195-6671(91)90015-5.

Reference named "gradsteinetal2005":

From Avimimus: Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, James G.; Smith, Alan G. (2005). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78142-8.
From Deinocheirus: Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G.; Smith, A.G. (2005). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press. pp. 344–371. ISBN 978-0-521-78142-8.
From Tarbosaurus: Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, James G.; and Smith, Alan G. (2005). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 500pp. ISBN 978-0-521-78142-8.

Reference named "efimov1983":

From Deinocheirus: Efimov, M.B. (1983). "Peresmotr iskopayemykh krokodilov Mongolii" [Revision of the fossil crocodiles of Mongolia]. Sovmestnaya Sovetsko-Mongol'skaya Paleontologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya Trudy (in Russian). 24: 76–96.
From Tarbosaurus: Efimov, Mikhail B. (1983). "Revision of the fossil crocodiles of Mongolia". The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions (in Russian). 24: 76–95.

Reference named "hurumsabath2003":

From Alioramus: Hurum, Jørn H.; Sabath, Karol (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190.
From Deinocheirus: Hurum, J.H.; Sabath, K. (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 188.
From Tarbosaurus: Hurum, Jørn H.; Sabath, Karol (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190.

Reference named "holtz2004":

From Deinocheirus: Holtz, T.R. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka (eds.). The Dinosauria (2 ed.). University of California Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
From Tarbosaurus: Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka (eds.). The Dinosauria (Second ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 124. ISBN 0-520-24209-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink1= ignored (|editor-link1= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink2= ignored (|editor-link2= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Alioramus: Holtz, Thomas R. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka (eds.). The Dinosauria (Second ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 0-520-24209-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, considering the subject, you seem the perfect fit for the job! Note that I'm working on a life restoration for the description section[1], perhaps you have some input for it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is getting its copyedit now, so the wording of things might be changed a bit when it's done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait, I've been quite busy the past few days. Anyway, the article looks pretty good on the whole, but there are some small issues:

"Stress from thermal factors (heated ground) is perhaps most severe during reproduction in desert environments, when adults stay in the nest for large parts of the day, and eggs and nestlings may be damaged as well." - I had to read this sentence a couple times before I could figure out what it means. I would suggest rephrasing it for better clarity.

I tried some new wording, how does it look? The paper uses the term thermal stress, but this seems to have several meanings, so I changed it to heat stress, which I think may be what's meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The diet of oviraptorids has been interpreted in various ways since..." - A reader might accidentally interpret the "since" here to mean " because", which is not correct.

Changed and shortened to "The diet of oviraptorids has been interpreted in various ways since the time Oviraptor was erroneously thought to have been a predator of eggs." That scenario was already explained at length under history, so i thought it would be ok to snip parts. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many times you use technical terms and then have a brief, non-technical explanation in parentheses. This is a good technique to make it readable, but it seems like there are several places where inclusion of the technical term is not necessary (for example, kinetic, molluscivore, remiges, durophagy etc.). These seem more distracting than informative to me.

Hmm, in many of these cases, the technical terms are the only terms that are ever used in the literature, so I think they need to be there (as in most similar articles, pretty much all biology FA articles use glossed technical terms), and the articles about these subjects are also located at the technical names. Compare with for example the FAs Gomphus clavatus, Ficus rubiginosa, or Giant mouse lemur. If it educates the reader and teaches them new terms, I think it's for the better, and we shouldn't really underestimate the readers to start with. Someone who gets distracted by technical terms would hardly be inclined to read down to that part of the article anyway, and we do have Simple Wikipedia for articles written in simpler language. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, but stylistically it's off-putting to me to use so many of these technical glosses. For most words, I definitely agree it's necessary, but for ones where you just use it once in the article and it's not central to the topic, I find it a little distracting. That being said, I suppose that's just my stylistic preference and I will not block the nomination for it.Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the description section, you list a lot of measurements without saying which specimen you are describing.

I thought this was unnecessary, since the only good skull belongs to the holotype, and the nesting specimen was stated to be the same size as the holotype, and measurements are only taken from these two (the third one is smaller). So since the two measured specimens are the same size, I thought it was ok to list their measurements in succession, since the Fanti paper "completes" measurements by extrapolating from the two specimens. But maybe you think it should be more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. In that case, you should probably just mention somewhere that the two specimens are the same size. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under description too? It is also mentioned in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, oops. I didn't notice you already mentioned it. Yeah, I'd say it's fine then. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lead is a little unorganized. I would recommend splitting it into two paragraphs: one devoted to the ecology of Nemegtomaia and one talking about the nesting specimen. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean, though intro paragraphs don't necessarily have to be ordered by subject, the important part is being concise. WP:LEADLENGTH states that a 30,000 characters article (this one is about 29,000) should only be two or three paragraphs long, and I'm not too fond of very short paragraphs in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as is the third paragraph is difficult to follow. Maybe move the information about diet and habitat to the description paragraph? I'm just concerned because you flip between talking specifically about the nesting specimen and talking about Nemegtomaia more generally at least once in that paragraph and it's not always clear when you are talking about what. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to group info about behaviour and ecology in the same paragraph. I changed some of it to make it clear when the text tells something about Nemegtomaia as a whole, is it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, much better! I wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to do, but I see it now. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the review on hold for 7 days. By the way, I'm flattered you think I'm perfect for this review; I hope my comments suffice! :) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, you're the eggs-pert around here, sorry for the extremely bad pun! Will fix these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all my points have been addressed; review is passed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now I just need to finish that drawing, then it'll be the first ever oviraptorid at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking really good, FM. I've been picking at it a little, but it doesn't seem to need much work so far. However, I think the skull image should be in the "Description" section where the skull is discussed in detail, rather than in "Evolution", where the skull image isn't that helpful, and which already contains an image of the head. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was there originally, but I moved it down to make room for a restoration that I'll add to description in a few minutes... But note various skull features are discussed in the evolution section, so it does have some relevance there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]