Phosphatodraco is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I take the point that this needs a taxonomic box, though the same could be said of any number of palaeontological articles. But how is this categorised wrongly? Why Tree of Life? I cannot find any pterosaur article so categorised. If you are going to slap on a tag please explain yourself. --Gazzster 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should spell out the cervical vertebrae are in the neck in the lead Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already is? "consisting of five cervical (neck) vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to convert to ftin rather than just ft or just in Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches) Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. I use metrics myself too.
"the first preserved vertebra" I thought this meant C1/C1+C2 Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all the source says, we can't really change their etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you wikilink Rabat but not Casablanca? Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked under first paragraph, "(OCP, located in Casablanca)", FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"called the issue 'controversial' " seems unnecessary Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite important for the context, as it shows they refrained from taking sides. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's implied when they say it's impossible to choose one side or the other because the remains are too fragmentary Dunkleosteus77(talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Description you put parentheses next to a convert template, so it displays as two parentheticals right next to each other Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the ones from that journal. One problem is that the Plos template on Commons gives an outdated licence:[1]FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, I still need to explain some anatomical terms, but otherwise should be ready for a look-over. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The following C7 vertebra (Kellner's C6[7]) is shown in bottom view" are you referring to a picture? Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola and colleagues, which is shown in hind view" I think these kinds of things would go better in the caption Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They expressed hope that their study would inspire more research into the lifestyle of azhdarchids besides just their flight capability." I don't get why this is necessary Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
