Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmontosaurus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 29 March 2009 [1].

Edmontosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): J. Spencer (talk)

Submitted for your approval, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs and friends: Edmontosaurus. This is the flat-headed duckbilled dinosaur you may remember as Anatosaurus, Trachodon, Thespesius, or, if you are willing to "really" date yourself (as in turn of the 20th century), Claosaurus. It's cited thoroughly and covers the description, classification, history, paleoecology, and paleobiology of this genus in detail. Highlights include "mummy" specimens and tyrannosaur damage. The article has also had an extended period of polishing. J. Spencer (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cretaceous "Hell Creek Faunal Facies" is a summary page, with sources listed after each taxonomic section. It's not a big deal, as it's the second reference for that information. I like to include it because it's an online source. J. Spencer (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent external link then. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Edmontosaurus annectens at the Yale University Museum, the first nearly complete dinosaur skeleton mounted in the United States." —As I remember the first mounted skeletons was Hadrosaurus in 1868, correct? So I'm assuming this is hinging on "nearly complete"? Either way I'd like a citation in the caption text.
  • "a relatively large head" doesn't tell us much as written; for this to really provide any concrete sense of scale it would have to be in relation to something.
  • "...as put forward by Jack Horner and colleagues in 2004" - any update on this?
  • Check me if I'm wrong, but it appears everything's in AmEng, except for this "metre" business...

--Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got the citation, and removed the adjectives. Hopefully someone publishes something on the variation and taxonomy of Edmontosaurus in the near future (I know of some grad students working on this), but the Anatotitan-Edmontosaurus thing is a loose end to date. The unit spelling was mostly due to the convert template (plus a few places where I used the "-re" ending to conform). I just put in the |sp=us element. J. Spencer (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could there be some sort of closure resolution on the Horner thing then? I mean, if it hasn't been settled, it hasn't been settled, but it would be nice to know that it hasn't been settled definitively rather than judging by omission. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a short parenthetical note to that effect, although I'm not entirely satisfied with it because it seems like I'm casting aspersions on their work (for disclosure, my personal opinion is that Anatotitan and Edmontosaurus are probably the same genus, and that A. copei is either its own species under Edmontosaurus or a end-member on variation within E. annectens). J. Spencer (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fine to me; if somebody hasn't followed up on his stuff it's a good thing to note that it's still pending. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • Dabs and external links (using the checker tools in the toolbox) are found up to speed.
  • A couple of issues found with WP:REFTOOLS concerning the ref formatting.
  • The following ref is duplicated, and makes it appear as such in the references section.
  • {{cite book |last=Horner |first=John R. |authorlink=Jack Horner (paleontologist) |coauthors=Weishampel, David B.; and Forster, Catherine A |editor=Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; and Osmólska, Halszka (eds.)|title=The Dinosauria |edition=2nd |year= 2004|publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |isbn=0-520-24209-2 |pages=438–463 |chapter=Hadrosauridae }}
  • The following ref name is used more than once to name different refs, when it should only be naming one specific ref.
Ref formatting is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Conditional support. I've done some delinking of low-value links of common nouns— duck, starvation, camel, bird—per WP:CONTEXT, and I see J. Spencer has picked up on it and continued to rescue the helpful links from drowning in a sea of pointless blue. Very nicely done; if you'll please go on delinking in much the same way throughout the page, I will support this well-written article. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I've removed several more based on guessing what people may already know. Would anyone mind if "polygon", "monograph", "theses", and "dissertation" were delinked? J. Spencer (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise as a WP:dinosaurs member) I have read through this a couple of times and feel it meets criteria of prose and comprehensiveness well. I think the bluelinks are not overdone as of now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One image concern as follows:

Other images check out fine after some work. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballista, who originally uploaded the image, hasn't edited since October 2006. I noticed other images from the same user have been tagged with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}}. Would it be appropriate for me, as another user, to change to that from {{GFDL-user-en}}? J. Spencer (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the situation, I think it is appropriate; however, I changed it to what the Commons bots use (per File:Archaeopteryx 2.JPG). All images okay. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: "An example of this is William Morris's 1970 interpretation of a skull of E. ?annectens with nonbony beak remnants." Is the question mark supposed to be there? Jappalang (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common practice among paleontologists to put a question mark in front of a taxon they're not sure of (so in this case Morris was sure of the genus but not the species). However, I've noticed before on WP that this practice raises eyebrows. I've removed it for now, but I could also include it with an explanatory footnote. J. Spencer (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First comments: The article is actually sort of over-polished, i.e. too formal. The phrase "flat-headed duck-billed dinosaur" used to introduce it here would do very well in the first paragraph of the article. Also, I feel that the infobox should absolutely show a picture of the dinosaur rather than its skull -- the first thing a reader wants to know is what the damn thing looked like! Looie496 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking through Commons, we've got the best available skeletal images in the article right now, with "Postcranial skeleton" and "Interactions with theropods." I could move one of those into the taxobox (there'd need to be a substitute for the bitten specimen, but I have some decent photos of the damaged bones). I also have a personal photograph of the same specimen in the "Interactions with theropods" section that's more directly side-on, but of lesser quality. J. Spencer (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking of the drawing from Species and distribution -- that's the most useful picture in the article to a general reader. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped photos - how's that look now? J. Spencer (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were discussions on the dino and paleontology projects where it was agreed by the participants that fossil remains or casts should have priorioty in taxoboxes over artistic reconstructions, since these are less citable and are to some extent original research (everything which isn't bone or known from other fossils is based on an artist's preferences). Shouldn't that apply here, especially as we have several good images of skeletal remains? Here's a comment from Dinoguy:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know that every article has to be the same. If we had a good side-on image of a modern Edmontosaurus skeletal mount (comparable to the restoration, so minimal perspective distortion, all of the limbs, not necessarily all of the tail) I'd change my mind. J. Spencer (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's one on Commons which could be lightened up and cropped, like here:[3] What about the one damaged by Trex as you mentioned? Problem with life restorations is also that they're quickly outdated. Seems like the one we have already is, since it lacks certain features which are unpublished as of now, and also has nails on its front leg. I draw restorations for dinosaurs to Wikipedia articles as well, so it's not that I have anything against them, I just think the argument about at least the taxobox having the most factual image available is a pretty sound one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded commons:File:DNMHedmonto.jpg, which is the one I was talking about before that I had. It's grainy and I think the knees seem too straight, but it's Ken Carpenter's skeletals and he's got the benefit of the doubt from me. I would like to make two points here: 1) there shouldn't be an ironclad standard for all dinosaur articles - if the best available restoration does a better job than the best available skeletal photo of getting across what the animal looked like, we should have the flexibility to put the restoration in the taxobox; 2) skeletal mounts are as prone to inaccuracies as restorations, are a lot harder to fix once an inaccuracy is known, are inevitably going to include their own original research based on factors ranging from the condition of the specimen itself to the space and money available for mounting it, and don't always allow for the incorporation of additional information like skin and soft tissue structures. J. Spencer (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, again, I like restorations, it's just in the context of Wikipedia, which has high demands when it comes to accuracy. But of course, it also comes down to image quality, as for example in the Majungasaurus article, it wouldn't make much sense to put one of the images of broken fossils we have in the taxobox, because those images don't mean much to most people, so there a restoration is perfectly valid I think. Here's a version of the image you uploaded where I've made it less blurry and corrected the colour, by the way:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like those changes - feel free to upload it over mine. J. Spencer (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, now it's up. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Article needs some prose polishing. It's not bad (actually rather good from the looks of it) but there are some things that should be tweaked. Just starting at the lead:

  • "(meaning "Edmonton lizard," after the Edmonton Formation [now Horseshoe Canyon Formation] in which it was found, and Greek sauros meaning lizard)" - A bit cumbersome, don't you think?
  • "Its fossils have been found in rocks of western North America that date to the late Campanian and Maastrichtian stages". I assume this means the late Campanian stage and the entirety of the Maastrichtian stage. The phrasing unintentionally implies the late Campanian stage and the late Maastrichtian stage. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was closely related to Anatotitan, if not the same genus" - This doesn't quite work.
  • "Edmontosaurus has a lengthy and complicated taxonomic history dating to the late 19th century, which has seen various species now regarded as belonging to Edmontosaurus classified with genera such as Claosaurus, Thespesius, Trachodon, and the well-known but now defunct genus Anatosaurus." Rather convoluted and rambling. This might work better as two sentences. How about "Edmontosaurus has a lengthy and complicated taxonomic history that dates to the late 19th century. Species of the genera Claosaurus, Thespesius, Trachodon, and the well-known but now defunct genus Anatosaurus are now regarded as species of Edmontosaurus."?
  • "several other species that are now thought to pertain to Edmontosaurus were named earlier". This is rather abstract phrasing when we're talking about a type of animal here, not an idea. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd that the word "animal" is not used at all in the lead. The use of it would help cut down on redundant phrasings, and it's easily accesible for general readers.

I'll come back and look at the article further in the future. I would copyedit the article myself, but I think someone more familiar with scientific terminology should go through the entire page first. Once that's done contact me on my talk pageWesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another comment The dating in the article leaves open the possibility that Eddie may have survived until the big crash of 65 Mya. If so, it would have been one of the last dinosaurs, and that would be interesting to mention. But if there aren't any applicable sources, just ignore this comment. Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions in a couple of places that it was part of the last dinosaurian fauna. I moved up a sentence in the lede to make that point more clearly. I don't have any sources on hand to say how close it's been found to the boundary clay, although of course that's only a proxy since vertebrate remains tend to be scarce. J. Spencer (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as writer of small portions of this article). Article is comprehensive; a dozen times better than Encarta's [5] or those of other encyclopedias. The principal author of this article has studied hadrosaurids professionally, and the references from peer-reviewed sources are accurate. All links are working, WP:MOS has been followed, and the English is free of grammatical errors, although I have worked on these types of articles too long to judge clarity to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edmontosaurus&oldid=1138459226"