Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Compsognathus

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

---

Compsognathus

I am nominating Compsognathus to FA status. This is another production of the Wikiproject dinosaur team on a lesser known of these prehistoric critters. The article has been extensively edited during the last few weeks and as it is now, it is as comprehensive as possible considering that only two reasonably complete skeletons of this animal have been found (a century and a half apart). The article currently cites 32 scientific references which is more than for the previous successful FA candidates Albertosaurus, Psittacosaurus and Velociraptor. ArthurWeasley 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Header must be converted to use   between numbers and units as per WP:MOSNUM, and references should have digital object identifiers as per talk page. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

&nbsp nailed. J. Spencer 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arthur Weasley said he wants to do the DOI magic later (no pun intended). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reformated all journal references and added DOI numbers and links to all those that have one. Are DOI numbers a new requirement for citing journal papers? I could not find anything in the policy that says so and none of the previous FA dinosaur articles except Iguanodon have these in their references ArthurWeasley 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no such requirement that DOI, ISBN, or any other weird numbers be added. It's fine and good to have them, but you shouldn't feel compelled just because someone threatens to oppose an FAC. — Brian (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not a constructive comment. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^Shrug^. It was just a clarification. No offense was intended. — Brian (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ISBN and DOI are nice things to have that's why I've added them whenever they were available (for journal papers, please note than only those that are published on-line have a DOI number). The   thing has been taken care of as well. Why do you still oppose the nomination, Samsara? ArthurWeasley 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Paleobiology section imho needs to be split up. Separate anatomy (merge with description into an "anatomy" section) from ecology/life history stuff. Shrumster 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. More headings will not benefit the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment for Shrumster: We have been formatting headings for each dinosaur FA candidate the same way, which was recommended to us by the FAC reviewers here. If a new style is now preferred, we can certainly accomodate that, but it won't match the ten earlier Featured dinosaur articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support 82.71.48.158 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • IP's aren't allowed to vote in FAC's? to my knowledge - note to admin that this vote should be discounted... Probably knew that though... Spawn Man 07:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support As dino collab coordinator and modest contributor to this article I feel it compares favourably to some of the other dino FAs in terms of coherency and readability (i.e. prose). I also support Samsara's and Firsfron's views on layout, and Arthurweasley's comments on DOI. I see no explicit policy on DOI but I can see we're endeavouring to get as many as possible. cheers (samsara I thought we'd got all those pesky spaces....:)) Casliber | talk | contribs 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment at the risk of sounding like a nerd, is there really any proof that these were meant to be the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movies? I know it's procompsognathus in the novels, and I imagined referring to them as compsognathus in the movies was really just slangy- much like velociraptors are called raptors, but they're still velociraptors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: That is a good question. It is a mess. Because there is no "Compsognathus triassicus", (only a Compsognathus longipes and a Procompsognathus triassicus), we were torn for a while on where to put this. However, offical Jurassic Park merchandise indicates it is Compsognathus (because that is the name it is marketed under). Also: Procompsognathus is larger: around 4 feet in length. They are not closely related; Procompsognathus is a Coelophysoid. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's a link to official Jurassic Park packaging: Pteranodon with Compsognathus ("Compy") Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hm, I wish there were something explicit, like an interview or DVD commentary saying "We abandoned procompsognathus because..." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The official script from the Lost world is also calling them Compsognathus and their size in the movie as pointed out by Firsfron are really too small to be Procompsognathus. ArthurWeasley 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd hate to sound argumentative, but again the raptor analogy applies. Raptors in the movies are too big to be velociraptors, but within fiction they're still velociraptors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, what the Hollywood folks wanted for these movies is anyone guess. All what we know is that they have a record of sacrificing scientific accuracy for dramatic effects (you just have to look how Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were depicted ;). But since the name Compsognathus was used in the movies, this ought to be mentioned in the popular section. ArthurWeasley 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
              • BTW, the pic needs a fair use rationale. Not that I'm an expert on fair use, but I'd question if the picture should be used, if we don't know it's the dinosaur the picture is illustrating. But I suppose the common name could justify keeping the written content. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as co-collaborator (is that even a word?). This article is roughly as long as earlier Featured dinosaur articles, remarkable since this genus is monotypic, having only one species (and just two full specimens) to write about (meeting FAC #4). Discredited ideas (such as the webbed hands, an extra species, possible fossil eggs, etc) are discussed, but not given undue weight. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1b and 1d are certainly met.

This article is referenced with 47 in-line cites, which come from 30 scientific papers (primary sources), but no source is used heavily, leading to an article which both presents and cites sources evenly (meeting FAC 1c). There does not appear to be any uncited text, with the exception of the Jurassic Park appearance, which is easily confirmed by looking at any JP merchandising. I'm not sure why that has received so much attention, but I suppose IMDB (or something) can be cited if there are any lingering doubts.

The article appears to conform to the Manual of Style; it has a consise lead (2a), hierarchal headings (2b), and a substantial table of contents (seven sections and five sub-sections) (2c). There are five images in the article, one of which is copyright-expired (1903), three which are self-made, and one which is fair-use in the pop culture section, where it is discussed. FAC #3 appears satisfied. The only Featured Article criteria which I cannot judge here is (1a). Since I am already familiar with the terminology, and since I worked on the article extensively, I recuse myself from judgements about the prose or clarity, leaving that to be judged by others. Great job, Arthur! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moral support as WP:DINO member and minor contributor; I find it to be a thorough, readable article on this dinosaur. I will be around to assist in requested changes, as well. J. Spencer 05:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now→Support - Sorry to be a joy germ, but I'll have to oppose for now as my problems wouldn't be seen to if I supported. My main problem is the opening. It has brilliant prose etc etc, but the problem is that a large chunk of its second paragraph is about an entirely different dinosaur. Now this may seem alright if this was a normal article, but this will be on the main page. Article previews on the main page usually contain info about the dinosaur, not some other one. I suggest that some general information is put into the opening to either add to the mentioned text or to suppliment it. The text I talked about could possibly be merged into the description section too... My second point is that I'd like to see the description section bigger. Possibly only by a paragraph or two, but it would really help lengthen the article before it is cut off abruptly by the references (yes I feel the article is too short, but that seems to be the norm nowadays...) Thanks & I will change my vote once I feel changes have been met with enthusiasm. Thanks again. :) Spawn Man 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. You shouldn't start off an FAC by critisising other FA's such as Velociraptor, Alberta & Pssita... Spawn Man 08:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm - we weren't criticising them just pointing out that although the article is short it has an equivalent (or larger) number of references of other articles that have made FA status. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No criticism was intended indeed. Nailed the first point I think. Will look on the second point. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. The opening is probably too short now. It would be better suited to 2 paras, & a little bit more info should be required. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanded the intro a bit. ArthurWeasley 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far. I've rewritten the information you added so that it flows better & that it isn't in a thrid isolated paragraph. It also cuts down the amount of work for you in my next request. "The popularity of this dinosaur stems from the fact that for almost a century it was the smallest known dinosaur and the closest supposed relative of the early bird Archaeopteryx. It was demoted from both these positions by recent paleontological discoveries." - This sentence has a wierd prose to it. I'd like a small rewrite of a couple of points. 1)Popularity - Is this the best term? 2)"almost a century it was the smallest known dinosaur and the closest supposed relative of the early bird Archaeopteryx" - Just doesn't sound right to me. A small prose fix may be in order. 3)"by recent paleontological discoveries" - How recent? If you include a date you could get rid of "recent" (i.e. "by paleontological discoveries in year?"). If you fix that while maintaining the size of the paragraph, then I'll have no problem supporting - although the article is a bit small for my liking, but I guess I'll have to live with that. Thanks, Spawn Man 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. J. Spencer 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support above↑. Spawn Man 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, guys :) ArthurWeasley 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NP - Don't know why Samsara's still opposing though. Spawn Man 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've copy-edited the article to remove some redundancy, rephrase for clarity, and avoid passive voice. For the last of these, I often had to assume that the agents doing the action were the scientists cited in the reference following; if this is not the case, please revert. One example is where I changed "Teeth from the Kimmeridgian Guimarota formation of Portugal have also been assigned to the genus" to "Zinke has assigned teeth . . . ." Now on to why I oppose:
  • A few terms are used that may be familiar to dinosaur buffs and scientists, but which might need to be parenthetically explained for the lay reader upon first use. The words I question are theropod, mandibular fenestra, orbit, and nomen dubium.

(this is a common dilemma on this type of article - in terms of on-page explanation vs. bluelink. I feel this is one of the best features of the crosslinking feature but will see if we can slot some stuff in)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

mandibular fenestra, orbit and nomen dubium fixed. Explaining theropod is more far fetched. Would leave it as is. After all this is what the blue links are for. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • What does "lightly constructed skull" mean?

(Delicate is an alternative (?) but I had thought it self explanatory)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs

Yeah, I'd prefer "delicate" or even "light". "Lightly constructed" just seems odd to me, as "construction" doesn't imply biology. — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lightly constructed is a term frequently used in paleontological circles (just type lightly constructed and dinosaur in google) but this can be replaced by delicate I presume. Is there a consensus here? ArthurWeasley 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have been the editor to write about the lightly-constructed skull; in retrospect, alternate wording might be appropriate. I guess "lightly-constructed" is too jargon-like, and I certainly don't mind a switch out to a different wording. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Switched to delicate then. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The article goes off in tangents at times, talking about things that really don't pertain to Compsognathus and that should probably be cut. This happens in the "Discovery and species" section, where we're told about other species found near Compsognathus and under the "Habitat" section, where this is done again.

(I like the addition of creatures found in the same strata; we've done it for other dino FAs and recall the reception was pretty positive. Agree there is a spot of reduplication that could be addressed)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to elaborate on why this information is pertinent in the article, then? For example, does the sentence "Fossils from the Solnhofen limestone also include a number of marine animals such as fish, crustaceans, echinoderms and marine mollusks" imply that these creatures existed at the same time as Compsognathus? — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

fixed, I think. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't think it is necessary to mention that Compsognathus didn't hunt in packs under "Diet". The mention in the "Popular culture" section should be fine.

(Again, we're talking ecology and pointing out what current thinking has to say on a popular portayal; I do feel this is valid but will wait on hwat others have to say later tonight)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just fail to see why the inaccuracy of a movie's portrayal of the species belongs anywhere but the "popular culture" section. I mean, there was a cartoon called Dinosaucers that had an Allosaurus character, but that article doesn't need to say, "Unlike the portrayal in Dinosaucers, Allosaurus could not speak and pilot a spaceship." — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are proofs that some theropods such as Giganotosaurus hunted in pack (also careful studies of footprints). The sentence just states that no such proof exists for Compsognathus (i.e. its behavior depiction in JP is an extrapolation). But you are right, this might as well go in the popular section. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved this to the popular section. ArthurWeasley 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • There are a few places where the person doing something is not mentioned by name. This would be a great addition to the article if this information is known. For example, "The larger French specimen was discovered in 1972 [by whom?] . . . ", "Although the French specimen was originally described as a separate species [by whom?] . . . ", "At one time, Mononykus was proposed as a member of the family, [by whom?]", and "some [examples?] hold the family as the basalmost of the coelurosaurs, while others [examples?] as part of the Maniraptora."

(working on these..)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Cas. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm uneasy describing this creature's forepaws as "hands", but I admit I'm not familiar with the research on it. Is this the term used by dinosaur scientists? Similarly, "fingers" gave me pause.
    • Comment: The formal term is manus. "Paws" usually refer to the feet of quadrupedal animals. If this isn't fixed already, I'll fix it. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Right. All instances of "hands" changed to "manus" or "forefeet"; we were attempting to write this so that the average high school student could understand it, but here we may have erred on the side of language which is too informal. I ran an automated search for "fingers", and didn't find that word. I assume it's been removed by someone else). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "In popular culture" section is crufty, and I would not shed a tear if it were removed. This isn't a dealbreaker, though.
    • I wouldn't mind either, but as the name implies, it's popular and it has became some sort of requirement for all featured dino articles. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• So that's it. If these issues can be dealt with, I'll gladly change to a supporter of FA status. — Brian (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(PS: Thanks for the feedbakc - these are thought-provoking points and I am ruminating as I write....)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of supporting, but there is one more minor issue to address: Per Wikipedia:Captions, captions should not end with a full stop unless they are complete sentences. If this is addressed, I'm a support. — Brian (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've filled out the captions so each one is a complete sentence. If you want the wording adjusted, feel free to comment here, or adjust it yourself. Thank you for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're still not full sentences; they lack verbs in most cases. Why not just revert to how they were before and remove the full stops? (Sorry I can't just fix this myself. I'm at school at the moment, but I can work on it this evening if no one else has fixed it by then.) — Brian (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost there. The image of the cast of the fossil could use a more active caption or a change back to the pre-full-stopped version. Is this the French or German specimen? If I know that much, I can cobble something active and explanatory together for the caption. — Brian (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a cast of the original german specimen. ArthurWeasley 06:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, tweaked. I am now a happy Support. I really enjoy these dinosaur articles, and I commend the WikiProject: Dinosaurs members for some really good work. Can't wait to read your next collaboration. — Brian (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Brian's oppose - Hmm, a lot of opposeing points there. I disagree with a few points however - Theropod is just non-negotionable & even trying to explain it fully is all but impossible. The others fine, but theropod is just something the reader has to click on. Like genus or maths; we don't explain maths in articles. In regard to hunting in packs, there should be a small mention in both the pop culture section debunking JP's mistakes, & in the paleobiology sections, as many smaller dinosaurs often hunted in packs. This common hunting strategy & JP's widespread misconception make a quick mention needed in the relevant sections. In regard to the "Lightly constructed" pointer, lightly constructed is pretty self explainatory - What about professional yachts? They are described as lightly constructed so the term is not only limited to paleo-groups. Basically it is a basic term which is pretty easy to understand & delicate sounds wierd when describing a dinosaur. The pop culture section should stay, but be rewritten. As for all your other points, I agree with them, so no problems there. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good arguments. I agree about theropod. It'd be nice to explain it, but I'm okay with it being a link if it's too involved to go into. As for the JP pack hunting, it just seems trivial to me. I mean, think of how often Tyrannosaurus has been depicted in popular culture, and how inaccurately in some cases. Should that article spend so many bytes debunking all this? Say what the dinosaurs were like, and debunk the movies and books on their own pages, methinks. I still think constructed implies human effort (and yachts are human-built). I'd even accept lightly built as a possible compromise. I'm on the verge of supporting, at any rate. Thanks for the replies, — Brian (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. However, I must disagree profusely with your objection to full stops in captions. I have had complaints before in FACs about captions not having fullstops & have added them ever since then. I urge you to reconsider this objection as you said you'd support once this is fixed. I feel it cannot be fixed as there is nothing wrong with it. Thoughts? Spawn Man 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The guideline just states they need to be full sentences to use full stops. Now that each one is a full sentence, we should be able to keep the full stops. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It does say "generally" however... Spawn Man 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but FAs are supposed to be the best of the best. As such, they should adhere to all relevant style guides. — Brian (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And it does... Spawn Man

Almost. — Brian (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, pretty much fully complies. Generally is a great word... ;) This so much reminds me of a past FAC of mine where a guy opposed because of a word that was spelt incorrectly. Rather than fix it himself he opposed. Not saying this is you, but I'm stating that you are opposing over a couple of dots. Some people like them, some people don't. Is this really a deal breaker? Spawn Man 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he was referring to the caption in the cast image (see some paragraphs above) and understand he will be fixing it himself with the info I've just provided. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Spawn Man and I can "is not/is so" all day long, but my interpretation of WP:WIAFA is that the article can't just be good enough to be a Featured Article; it needs to be perfect. This means fully complying with the strictest interpretation of the Manual of Style. Sorry of this makes me come off as a pedant, but pedants help make pretty good articles into excellent ones. At any rate, my objections have been addressed, so I've changed to a supporter of this article for Featured status. — Brian (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.