Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lystrosaurus/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [1].

Lystrosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is worth to be an featured article.... Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. That caption with a color in parentheses may need to be rethought in the light of the alt text (depends on how the alt text is written, I guess). Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope the alt text I put in is ok. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The alt text added to the lead image contains a word ("Lystrosaurus") that is not obvious to a non-expert who sees only the image, and should be reworded or removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, examples 1 and 3). Also, surely that alt text can be improved somewhat, so that a visually-impaired reader gets more of the gist of what that image conveys. The other images all still lack alt text; see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this page. Eubulides (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think i clarified the alt text in the images in the article. What do you mean by the "other images all still lack alt text"? I checked the link, and at the bottom it said that only 6 out of 12 images were displayed. Yet in the article, there are only 6 images. What other images lack the alt text? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for improving the lead image's alt text, but I'm afraid it still makes claims that cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is only looking at the image, as the phrases "pig-like" and "in Paris, France" are not obvious. Of the 6 images listed by the tool, 5 lack alt text, as indicated by the blue areas that contain no text; perhaps you were confusing caption with alt text in the tool's display? Eubulides (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is it now? Another editor helped me with the alt text, and I think its descriptive enough. Of course, please mention if anything is wrong. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Much better, thanks. A few more things for the newly-introduced text. The phrase "at a museum in China" should be removed, as it's not obvious from the image itself. The alt text for the geographical distribution contains some details ("Color is in brown") that aren't that important (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 6), and omits all discussion of the other animals in the image. Also, phrases like "Diagram illustrating", "Image of", "An illustration of" are not that helpful and should be removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The "in china" phrase was removed. The image about geographical distribution was also clarified. How is it now? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support WRT 1a. But here are a few niggles. Heavens, the nominator is named after the article topic!

  • I tweaked a little at the top. Can you check there are no more spaced em dashes. Take your pick: spaced en or unspaced em.
  • "Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial fossil beds, most abundantly in Africa but also including some in India, China and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time) and a few in Mongolia and the European part of Russia." This is not such a good sentence. Perhaps: "Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial fossil beds, most abundantly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in parts of [what are now?] India, China and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time), and in Mongolia and European Russia." You may be able to improve on this suggestion.
How does this sound. — Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial bone beds, most abundantly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in parts of what are now India, China, Mongolia, European Russia, and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time).

I already put it in there, but tell me if anything is wrong with it. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As so often with fossils, there is debate about exactly how many species have been found in the Karoo"—I can't think how to fix this; as so often ... found in a particular region. But you need then to associate it with the Karro. Can it be done neatly?
I reworded it to this: — As so often with fossils, there is debate in the paleontological community as to exactly how many species have been found in the Karoo.

Is that ok? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "4"—MOSNUM says "four", unless there's a reason to use a numeral. Here, there's every reason not to, given the digitised year 200 ms earlier.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 06:28, August 1, 2009

Done. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is written is good, I have tweaked a little, and there are still some "It has been suggested that.."-type phrases that it would be good to reword if possible - e.g. if a particular notable paleontologsit proposed a particular theory then name him or her.
  • Comprehensiveness issues - compare with Herrerasaurus, a recently promoted article. Needs a classification section - what's the genus related to? Also, who named the genus originally and when? Many dino articles have a Paleoecology section - what was the environment of the karoo (and moscow and antarctic) like in the permian and triassic? Some is already done. This is all doable. I am happy to help if I can, and copyedit etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to what is stated above, a few other minor issues:

  • "Four to six species are currently recognized", yet 7 species are listed in the taxobox. Further down in the article, you mention that L. platyceps and L. oviceps are now synonyms for L. curvatus. I think that needs to be reflected in the taxobox. Personally, I've never dealt with this issue, so I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe put the two junior synonyms after L. curvatus in parentheses, such as (syn. L. platyceps and L. oviceps)?
  • From "Dominance of the Early Triassic" section: "However, there are weaknesses in all these points: the chest of Lystrosaurus was not significantly larger in proportion to its size than in other dicynodonts that became extinct; although Triassic dicynodonts appear to have had longer neural spines than their Permian counter-parts, this feature may be related to posture, locomotion or even body size rather than respiratory efficiency; L. murrayi and L. declivis are much more abundant than other Early Triassic burrowers such as Procolophon or Thrinaxodon." - Sentence seems overly long and difficult to follow. Maybe someone good at copyediting can look it over and offer an opinion?

Overall, article looks pretty good, though it still requires a bit of work. In particular, I think it may need a good copyedit. Next time I would recommend submitting the article for a Good article review before going straight to FAC, and maybe even have a Peer review as a next step. Otherwise, keep up the good work! –Visionholder (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now:
  1. Lystrosaurus (meaning 'shovel lizard', pronounced /ˌlɪstrɵˈsɔːrəs/) was a genus of Late Permian and Early Triassic Period dicynodont therapsids, which lived around 250 million years ago in what is now Antarctica, India and South Africa. I do not like this sentence from the lead. That the genus lived in Late Permian and Early Triassic already implies that it was 250 million years ago. I suggest "Lystrosaurus (meaning 'shovel lizard', pronounced /ˌlɪstrɵˈsɔːrəs/) was a genus dicynodont therapsids, which lived around 250 million years ago in Late Permian and Early Triassic Period in what is now Antarctica, India and South Africa."
  2. Four to six species are currently recognized—you forgot to mention the seventh species Lystrosaurus georgi, which is not from Africa.
  3. In the 'Other species' subsection the words: which is regarded as one of the least specialized species and has been found in very Late Permian and very Early Triassic sediments repeat what was already said in the previous subsection and should be removed. The subsection itself is too short and should be expanded or merged with the previous subsection.
  4. In the 'Dominance in the early Triassic' section there is a sentence: At least one unidentified species of this genus survived the end-Permian mass extinction and, in the absence of predators and of herbivorous competitors, went on to thrive and re-radiate into a number of species within the genus, which contradicts what was said in the previous section. In it I read that that all species of Lystrosaurus except L. curvatus had not survived the extinction.
  5. Again: L. murrayi and L. declivis are much more abundant than other Early Triassic burrowers such as Procolophon or Thrinaxodon. However the previous section says that L. murrayi and L. declivis are found only in Permian sediments. All these contradictions should be clarified.
  6. The article says nothing about ancestors of these animals. Indeed where they come from? I also interested when and why they got extinct and whether they left any descendants. In other words you should provide more context (see also comments of Casliber above).
  7. There are some problems with references: notes 1 and 9 do not have necessary information about authors, publishers, dates etc.

Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I second the concerns above. Also, it would be good to include some kind of "History of discovery"-type section. There is no mention in the article that Lystrosaurus was originally classified under Dicynodon, for example, or even any indication what the type species is. I'll work to add some of this information if I can but it should be present in a well-rounded paleo article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments –
  • What makes http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/herbivorousdinosaurs/p/lystrosaurus.htm a reliable source? About.com is usually unreliable in general.
  • References 3 and 9 need access dates.
  • Reference 11 should be formatted to include a publisher and author (if applicable), along with an access date.
  • According to the link checker, the Geowords external link is from a blacklisted site. Haven't seen that highlighted on the tool before, so it should be looked into. All other links function properly. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:32, 9 August 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/Lystrosaurus/archive1&oldid=1138466090"