Talk:Bajadasaurus

Images
Thanks to all for the nice contributions! I plan to continue working on it to make it ready for GAN, and maybe finally, FAC. I have two questions about the current image selection, though:
 * Do we really need the Dicraeosaurus? Does not really fit/sits within the description section. It is not precisely pertinent to this article also; we usually include closely related species only when image material of the topic is sparse. Here, it feels to be too much to me, an overload, more irritating than helpful. We already have the Amargasaurus further down.
 * I furthermore fear that we should remove the size chart until an proper size estimate has been published. As is, it is original research, and I don't think we can get it through the reviews anyways (obviously, size estimates are not given in the text). Another problem is that this chart gives the false impression that the size is known or has been estimated, when it is not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I inserted Dicraeosaurus due to white space in the bottom half of the classification section, but it could be removed without issue too. Indifferent on size chart. I'd advise against GAN/FAC for such a new taxon - it's primarily from a single reference and doubtless more information will be published in the future.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, any dinosaur will (hopefully) get more published on it in the future. But until a new specimen is found I doubt that much will happen here. It will be stable for some time to come. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue of a very low amount of sources for a GA/FA is still there. And wait, you said Dicraeosaurus is in the description section for you? It's sitting entirely in the classification section for me.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Low amounts of sources should be no problem, why should they? Same is true for Xixiasaurus, which just became FA. (And yes, how images appear varies quite a bit between different PCs, depending on font size and screen with) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a different situation from Xixiasaurus, in that it's not just a low amount, it's almost entirely a single one, which is bad for a GA. Also, regarding images, my switching of the skull images was because the one you put back in the skull section is a vague chunk of bone, whereas the other gives a much more complete image of the skull and a diagram of it. For someone, especially a general reader, reading the skull section, this a much more useful visual aid than the one you put there, whereas in the classification section it doesn't matter which it is, it's unrelated and merely there for space.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand what the issue is on having a GA or FA on a recently described species. Regarding the images, well, this "vague chunk of bone" is the most informative part of the skull. Though I'm still thinking about how to help the reader finding the features described in the text in this image. Perhaps editing the image to reduce complexity, and explain more in the caption? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't nominate a species described so recently for lack of coverage, but notice that a bird species, the Perijá tapaculo, became an FA the same year it was described, and I was the only one who expressed concern about that during the FAC. As for images, photos of the subject should take precedence, I personally only show other things when I've run out of images of the subject. Showing relatives in the classification section hasn't really been the norm always, I don't even think it was done much before I started doing it... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Said "most informative part of the skull" is still visible in the other image. What if we put the jaw image in the classification section so both the main skull image and the one you want in the skull section can go into the section? With mine in the contested position and yours in bottom left, for orientation reasons (subject facing text; a chunk of skull doesn't really face either way but a full head does).  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 23:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Think about smartphone users: They see the images one at a time. In order to make sense of the more detailed pics, it is really better to see the skull diagram first. This is also pertaining to the part that is discussed first in the text. Your argument that comparisons will be easier while reading might apply to your setup, but, for example on my PC I have both the skull diagram pic and the first longer paragraph of the skull section (where the latter is described) on the screen simultaneously. I would furthermore argue that you don't see much in thumb view and would have to open the image anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the order matters at all, what matters is the associated text. Many readers aren't even going to be reading the whole article anyways, they'll be looking for a specific section or two. So starting the skull section with a very clear image displaying the whole skull when they go to that section is preferable to having to go look for it. Your placement has the skull image in the skull section for you, but mine has it there for everyone, since it's literally rooted at the top of the section. Plus my setup has it in the section for mobile users and yours does not. Regarding the thumbnail thing, I disagree, the skull image is plenty informative at that size already.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Indent, as people who are familiar with my work know, I highly support the use of images, especially in paleontological and geological articles. I have just created the article for the host formation, the Bajada Colorada Formation, also name-giver to the genus, so not to have a red link in the lead. The top age of the genus (and formation) has been restricted to 134 Ma by a dated unconformity, see the added reference (in Spanish). I support the GAN nomination, for FAC it is probably too early, for the reasons FunkMonk stated, but GA should be doable. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your Bajada Colorada Formation. To get rid of the remaining red links, I can try to make an article on the Mendoza Formation as well; maybe the museum also if I find sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, but if you don't mind, please wait with the Mendoza Group article. I can tell you from experience that the Argentinian stratigraphy is notoriously bad, with authors basically defining every outcrop as a new formation, and then others come and make new divisions with or without revising the former ones. I have been working on the basins in Argentina for a while and it is far from straightforward. I will write the article based on sources I have gathered over the years. There is no hurry, right? Bajadasaurus also waited 135 million years to be described... Tisquesusa (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for taking that over! Yes, there is absolutely no hurry. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Considering a possible FAC: I still don't see it. Shouldn't every eligible article be, in principle, eligible of becoming a FA? You say lack of covering? We even have an quite extensive paleobiology part that specifically deals with this genus, therefore covering is reasonably good. Or is the issue that a single source might be too much of a bias, that alternative views are lacking? Well, we always have that problem if we add new interpretations based on new specimens to articles. Remember that this single source is a high-quality, peer-reviewed article: It got published only after approval by independent reviewers. This is a firm foundation to built a FA on. And no, it is unlikely to get better if we wait some years. Xixiasaurus has a few more sources on its classification section, but apart from that, and disregarding the background information (where sources are not specifically mention that genus), it is also principally based on a single source also. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally (again), my issue wouldn't be that there is only a single source, but rather that there has not been enough time for new sources to be published, and that the article is therefore not necessarily "stable" (like nominating an article about a child actor, it'll be inherently unstable, because their career just began). In the case of Xixiasaurus, "enough" time has passed that we can say that there wouldn't have come a new paper overturning anything we think we know about it after a year or two. But all of this can be disregarded, because we do have examples of species that became FAs the very years they were described (and note that I did support the promotion of the Perijá tapaculo after all). FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't every eligible article be, in principle, eligible of becoming a FA? - no, some articles are about topics too lacking information too become FA. In this case, it's a lack of sources. I can't stop you from nominating it for FAC, but I will oppose if you do so.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not in line with precedents, though. As mentioned earlier, plenty of newly described species have become FAs, and even articles as short as Abuwtiyuw are FAs. One of "my" GA articles I would never nominate for FAC is Martinique macaw; there is too little information about it, but in theory, it could probably be done. Bajadasaurus is already longer than many FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of those examples, however, are based on a variety of sources with no one obvious as the most prominent. In this article, reference [1] (the paper) is used in every paragraph, and is the primary reference for almost all paragraphs. Source [2] is a news article, [3] is a fossilworks citation I'm not even sure was necessary, [4] and [5] are only indirectly about the subject (instead about Dicraeosauridae more widely), [6] and [8] are again about other dicraeosaurs, merely applied to comments here, [7] is just for the comparison to big-horn sheep, and all the rest are for the short palaeoecology section. This article is in near entirety a summary of a single source, and that's not fit for FA.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But that is, after all, pretty much the same situation as Xixiasaurus; all additional papers (except one that mentions the downturned dentary) only mention it in passing or in comparisons. There is no new info about the taxon itself. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, seems something went wrong with the GAN? The article doesn't show up under Biology and medicine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange. No idea. I now asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Showing up now. I'll review this in a couple of days, unless someone takes it first... One point, you might want to add the upright parameter to the vertical images to make them take up less space. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added upright parameter. That would be cool of course, but there is no hurry; it can also wait a week longer! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Novas chapter
. This is the most pointless edit war I have ever been involved in. I don't think any of us have serious objections to the passage in question: three genera are known from the Late Jurassic—Brachytrachelopan from Argentina; Suuwassea from the United States; and the eponymous Dicraeosaurus from Tanzania. Early Cretaceous dicraeosaurids include Bajadasaurus as well as Amargatitanis, Pilmatueia, and Amargasaurus, all from Argentina.. Here is what the Novas source has to say on the topic: The South American record of Cretaceous Dicraeosaurinae is scant at the moment. It includes the well-known Amargasaurus cazaui from the Barremian-Early Aptian of northwestern Patagonia and some remains from the Itapecurú Formation (Aptian-Albian, Parnaíba Basin) of northern Brazil (Carvalho, Avilla, and Salgado 2003). South American discoveries are important because Amargasaurus constitutes one of the best-known Early Cretaceous sauropods, while the Brazilian specimen, although incomplete, is the latest record for the group, indicating that dicraeosaurines survived until the end of the Early Cretaceous. It then goes on to discuss Amargasaurus in more detail. Nowhere within the provided page numbers is Brachytrachelopan, Suuwassea, Amargatitanis, Bajadasaurus, or Pilmatueia mentioned at all, although Brachytrachelopan is mentioned in another chapter, and though it does mention Dicraeosaurus in this section, it does not mention it as being from the Jurassic or from Tanzania. The citation was clearly provided to support the sentence that I removed: An unnamed specimen from the Itapecuru Formation of Brazil indicates that the group persisted at least until the end of the Early Cretaceous. I removed this sentence, because it appears to be referring to Amazonsaurus, which is not a dicraeosaurid, and as such, I removed the Novas citation, which provided little relevant support for the preceding material. As WP:Verifiability does not automatically require citations to be provided for uncontroversial information, I figured I did not need to put in the effort of tracking down an appropriate citation to a sentence that wasn't properly sourced to begin with. Now, unless you can point out what information I overlooked on pages 172–174 of Novas (2009), I suggest you reinstate the citation I added that does actually serve as a relevant secondary source, rather than insisting on preserving a largely irrelevant citation that was probably never intended to support the sentence in question in the first place. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointless in the sense that it can be easily dealt with, yes, but the problem here is that sentences shouldn't just be left without citations like that. Instead of just removing them, they need to be replaced or followed by additional sources, especially in featured articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll use this opportunity to link to the new skull description that should probably be used here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to get a copy, don't have access at the moment. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I misremembered what's in that book chapter, my appologies. These sentences do require a source, however; they do not count as uncontroversial information (such as "the earth is round"). For example, in the List of dinosaur genera, every name has to be covered by a source just to prove the very existence of those names. We had many discussions on this already … Your first edit removed a source without providing a better one, which FunkMonk was correct to revert for that reason in my opinion – but I admit that I was too quick with my judgement after that::Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realize that from my initial edit, my reasoning for removing the Novas citation altogether (i.e. that I felt it applied principally to the sentence that I removed, not the preceding sentence) was not obvious; I should have added an updated citation in the first place, or at the very least a citation needed/failed verification tag. I figured the sentence was uncontroversial enough that I could save the effort of finding a better citation, but I shouldn't have cut corners like that; my apologies. All's well that ends well, I suppose: we've now got an up-to-date citation for that sentence. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)