Talk:Carnotaurus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Status: Result = PASS
Starting review... initial impression is it doesn't look too bad at all. This is my first ever time doing a GA review so I will be asking for help from an experienced GA reviewer to check my work. 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for all these useful comments :) If you have suggestions for further improvement, please let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking good... preparing to go through sources next. 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did a bunch more tonight, see above. I'm puzzled about how the refs are done, can you look at my questions.... 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Finished looking at the sources and generally they look very, very good, except for a few format problems and some WP:SPS issues that need to be fixed. I have now finished reviewing all the WP:GA requirements and will be waiting on your updates. The issues identified are important for WP:GA but should be fixable. I'll "officially" put the review in on-hold status. Great work, not much further to go, and I can definitely see this article heading for FA in the not too distant future. 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you! I only have answered a few of your comments; I hope I will have time tomorrow to work of your points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated, and I moved the items not required for GA into a new section below. Just one small WP:OR thing to look at, and some WP: WORDS and some prose clarity items to fix. Looking forward to accepting this as GA soon. ...although I hasten to remind you (and myself) that once I am ready to accept it, I'm going to be asking an experienced GA reviewer to check my work, so that may add a bit of time before the actual pass. 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates reviewed, one "however" to consider removing and then we're done. 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ...now addressed, I think it's GA, listing for a second opinion. 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

double-checked my work, we're done! Kudos to you, hope to see many more GA nominations from you... 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS compliance

 * There is some duplicate Wikilinking in the body, esp. with the genus names, also femur.


 * Treat Wikilinking in the lead separately from the body. For example, theropod is WL'd in the lead but not the body, it should be in both places.  Also abelisaurid


 * Technical words that could use Wikilinking or a more common term: conspecifics, functionless, plesiosaur, rugose
 * ✅, except for "functionless"; I was not able to find another word that is as precise.

General

 * Apparently, the "theropod" nature of this beast is so fundamental to understanding it that word appears over a dozen times in the article, four times in the lead alone. Remember that your readers aren't necessarily paleontologists (I'm certainly not).  I'd like to see some explanation of what a theropod is in-article before the rest of the content is built on it.  Yes WLs are helpful but for a concept so fundamental to the understanding of the content I'd like to see like one or two sentences in-article explaining it.
 * I'm not sure about this one. In featured theropod articles, this term is never explained. Theropoda is just a clade; linking it should be enough.
 * you convinced me


 * "adaption"... is "adaptation" meant?


 * Is the spelling of "palaeontologist", "rivalling", "reinvestigate" correct for this article's WP:ENGVAR?
 * ✅, but I do not know what to make with "reinvestigate"?


 * Verb tense--the article shifts between present and past tense frequently; be consistent.
 * ✅ (I hope I got everything)


 * "Notable/notably" appears too often. If it's in an encyclopedia article I expect it to be notable, and when some things are described as "notable" that makes the other things sound like they're non-notable, so why are they in the article?  (Same with "unusually".) Just remove these words.


 * I like the in-line parenthetical explainers where used: hadrosaurid ("duck-billed"), dentary (the foremost jaw bone)--they make the article more accessible to non-specialists.


 * "Controversial"--the feeding habits and the relationships within the Abelisauridae are described as "controversial" but the controversy isn't explained. If a strong, emotive word like controversial is used, it needs to be explained.  Describe the "sides" of the controversy and what prevents the controversy from being resolved.  Then, remove the word "controversy."
 * and nicely done, too
 * and nicely done, too


 * "However" is used seven times. Can some uses be avoided or reworded, especially in the last paragraph of Classification?


 * Important one--On rereading this, I am getting confused in changes of context from describing the animal in general to describing the one specific skeleton found. The subsections in Description move between description of the animal in general and describing the one skeleton.  For example, the Vertebrae section feels like it's talking about the animal in general, but the last sentence in skull is clearly talking about the one skeleton,  "The curvature seen in the upper jaw is stronger than that seen in the lower jaw, a result of postmortem crushing of the skull."   I expect to be reading about the animal in general.
 * ✅, I understand that this could be confusing; I removed that information, it is not as important.
 * This issue is addressed sufficiently

Lead

 * Should "Period" in Late Cretaceous Period be capitalized?
 * I think so, but I'm not sure
 * ✅ I looked at the FA dino article you linked to, it didn't capitalize it, so I just made it lowercase...


 * "measuring 8 to 9 meters in length and weighing one or two metric tons"--follow WP:NUMERAL consistently; should it be "one to two" instead of "one or two"? Also in general, follow WP:NUMERAL for fraction names.


 * "Carnotaurus was a lightly built"..."it is characterized by"--maintain consistent tense


 * "Its feeding habits remain controversial;"--you probably mean to end this with a colon and not a semicolon; surely the feeding habits are not what is controversial, but rather there is debate among palentologists regarding its feeding habits?


 * "...although some studies suggested"--again a verb tense change (sentence started in present tense), is the debate still active or not?
 * The studies are already published, some in 1998, some in 2009 (-> past); but the debate is still active (-> present). What to do?
 * fine now


 * "was possibly one of the fastest large theropods known."--consider removing 'known'

Description

 * "The only known specimen was"--was? does the specimen not exist any more?  This paragraph has the word 'known' four times, eliminate most of them.


 * What is meant by "in life"? It's repeated several times.  Probably not necessary.
 * It is used to describe features that are not visible on the fossils, but occured when "the animal was alive". I don't want to remove it for clarity.
 * I see featured article Edmontosaurus uses this "in life" construction, it must be a paleontology idiom, so OK.


 * "Carnotaurus differs from all other abelisaurids in having proportionally shorter and more robust forelimbs, and in the fourth splint-like metacarpal being the longest bone in the hand."--the end of this sentence is clumsy (I'm stumbling over "being"), try "Carnotaurus differs from all other abelisaurids in having proportionally shorter and more robust forelimbs, and in having the fourth, splint-like metacarpal as the longest bone in the hand." Is "hand" the right word?  Should it be claw?
 * ✅ (and no, claws were absent)


 * Remove "unfortunately"--that's disallowed editorializing in article content.


 * Doing some fact checking: "The only known individual was about 8 to 9 meters in length, making Carnotaurus one of the largest abelisaurids." is sourced to Bonaparte 1990 pg. 38, I'm looking on that page and can't find it talking about size, am I missing something?
 * There is a skeletal reconstruction on that page with a scale bar. In the second paper cited, they say "8 to 9 meters" without discussion, only specifying "Bonaparte 1990" as the source of information. Thus, the first source had published the information, and the second source had interpreted it.
 * OK

Classification

 * "Carnotaurus is constantly shown to be one of the most derived members" -- Do you mean "consistently shown"? What does "most derived" mean?  To me, something is either derived or it isn't, "most derived" sounds funny, can you explain this better?
 * "most derived" is frequently used in biological sources. I have no idea how to explain it better. I don't want to write "more advanced", because the reader may think that Carnotaurus was "better" than other abelisaurids. I have linked the term derived now.
 * Although I still don't love it, FA Allosaurus has constructions like: "The rib cage was broad, giving it a barrel chest, especially in comparison to less derived theropods like Ceratosaurus."  Although, Herrerasaurus does it this way, "Derived and basal characteristics:  Herrerasaurus is something of an enigma in that it displays traits that are found in different groups of dinosaurs, and several traits found in non-dinosaurian archosaurs." but the current content is fine.


 * "However, a recent review suggests that Abelisaurus was a derived abelisaurid instead." -- 'However' should not be used to start a sentence, can you just drop it? Also, time-relative wording like "recent" needs to be removed, can you just put the year of the review in?
 * Whats wrong with starting a sentence with "However"? It is frequently used in featured articles, in the FA Evolution, there are 18 sentences starting with this word. I was not able to find an alternative; I need this word to establish a relation between the sentences.
 * I guess Wikipedia says it's OK to start a sentence with "however", but the article is using "however" in a few cases where probably "additionally" is meant. This is a clarity issue, as "however" indicates an opposing or limiting idea is about to be presented, but actaully an additional, separate or complementary idea is presented.  Consider replacing "however" with "additionally", or removing "however" altogether, for this one sentence to wrap this up:
 * "When pressed downwards, the teeth would have projected forward, allowing Carnotaurus to spike small prey items; when the teeth were curved upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey animal from escaping.[6] However, Mazzetta and colleagues also found that the skull was able to withstand forces that appear when tugging on large prey items."

Discovery

 * "successful"--it's puffery/editorializing, remove it


 * "Unusually, it preserves extensive skin impressions." -- I'm confused by this... what is doing the preserving of the skin impressions?


 * "Only recently have similar well-preserved abelisaurids..." -- need to remove 'recently' as a time-relative word

Locomotion

 * "The ability of an animal's leg to withstand those forces limit"--probably should use "limits"

Age and paleoecology

 * "announed"--probably 'announced' is meant


 * Actually might this whole section might be off-topic?
 * No. This section is standard in featured dinosaur articles (e.g., Herrerasaurus, Edmontosaurus). In paleontology, it is important to consider the environment the animal lived in.
 * OK

Paleobiology

 * "The use of these horns is not entirely clear; most interpretations have revolved around use in fighting conspecifics,[11][43][6][42][O] though a use in display[42] or in killing prey[6] also has been suggested." -- this looks like a little bit of original research, who has determined "most"?  It looks like from the citation count that it's the author of the article that has determined "most".  Consider using "several".


 * "today's" sounds like a time-relative term here, consider "modern"


 * "although by far not as good as those of an ostrich" -- consider "although not nearly as good as those of an ostrich"


 * "This so-called caudofemoralis muscle" -- "so-called" makes it sound like you are doubting the truth of something, is that what is meant?


 * There's a large paragraph starting "This interpretation was questioned by François Therrien...", sourced to a single pay-for-publish journal article. Is this WP:UNDUE weight?  What makes us think this one journal article's theories are so important as to deserve a whole paragraph of space?  Look at the amount of weight given to this one article, as compared to the previous paragraph which covers the theories published in three different articles in what appear to be much more selective or reputable journals.  Can you find a secondary source that covers this debate to help determine due weight to each theory?
 * I don't see a problem here. We have three paragraphs, each discussing the results of a separate group of rechearchers. In the first paragraph, two articles from the same researchers are cited; the third is not an article but only an abstract. Just because these researchers have released two articles supplementing each other, it does not mean that the opinion of these researchers is more important than that of others. The Therrien article is not from a journal, but from a book; you can not compare this.
 * OK

In popular culture

 * I hate "In popular culture" sections but, sadly, the world doesn't revolve around me! :)

Images and other media

 * Nice selection of images! Captions needs fixing per WP:CAPTION though, some need to be more informative (one is just "Restoration")
 * Is it ok now?
 * They're acceptable but not terrific... read WP:CAP

Reference section

 * section exists and uses WP:MOS-compliant style
 * Bakker 1998 URL is a dead link


 * Mazzetta 1998 URL is a dead link


 * Is there any reason why the direct link to the Bonaparte article can't be included


 * I've never seen this before: {{#tag:ref|...  I understand named refs and tag groups, but I have not seen something that looks like a prefix "#tag" in front of a template name before.
 * I don't like any of Wikipedias methods for citing sources. I have used this method because it was used in the most recently featured dinosaur article (Plateosaurus).
 * referencing is there even if it isn't how I would have done it

Sourcing

 * Source Hartman 2012 is a blogspot blog and not a WP:RS. This must be remedied.  In each of the 3 times it is used in the article, it is used alongside another source.  Is Hartman 2012 really needed?
 * From SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Scott Hartman is actually a dinosaur paleontologist and an expert on anatomy. Similar blogs written by experts on the field are cited in Plateosaurus, which is a featured article since 2012.
 * You're right, FA dino articles do use these sorts of sources. Well this was interesting to learn!  If I tried to do something similar in a medical article, it would get shot down faster than you can blink.  I reviewed the Plateosaurus FA review, and some very well-respected FA reviewers, including some specialists in the life sciences, reviewed and OK'd these kinds of sources.  I also reviewed the WP:DINO sourcing standards, and apparently primary sources are preferred... just goes to show that I'll have to make sure to review each WikiProject's sourcing standards before doing GA reviews for articles in the various project areas.


 * taxonsearch appears to be a self-published website and therefore a WP:SPS problem, can you redo the refs to refer only to the underlying work?
 * Taxonsearch is a scientific database run by famous paleontologist Paul Sereno, and indeed is a very good source. (See also: Sereno, P. C., McAllister, S., and Brusatte, S. L. 2005. TaxonSearch: a relational database for suprageneric taxa and phylogenetic definitions. PhyloInformatics 8:1-21.)
 * as above


 * Look at the Kielan−Jaworowska ref, there's some funny characters in there including a question mark
 * everything is right; the question mark means that the authors are not sure if its really a cimolodonta, such question marks are commonly used in paleontology.
 * so this is another paleo quirk I'll have to remember


 * "AllEars.net" is WP:SPS and not a reliable source... consider just removing that whole sentence.
 * I'm not sure if this is self publishing or not. As I am not the author of this sentence, I will ask on the talk page for advice.
 * for now, it's so minor I'm not going to worry about it. If it turns out not to pass WP:V please remove it... the sentence is largely irrelevant to the article topic anyway.


 * Creisler appears to be a WP:SPS problem as well
 * Creisler is worlds leading expert for dinosaur etymology (and is cited in Plateosaurus as well)
 * as above


 * Headden is a WP:SPS problem
 * The dinosaur mailing list postings (written mainly by experts) are considered a useful source for dinosaur articles (see featured articles like Allosaurus or Plateosaurus).
 * as above

Post-GA suggestions
I'm placing anything I've run across that isn't a stopper for GA but you might want to look at for FA in this section.


 * Too much passive voice, try rewording to avoid it
 * I don't see this problem. Could you give examples?


 * The layout in the lead isn't what I'm expecting. I expect the first paragraph of the lead to describe the animal.  The second or third paragraph might go on to explain how it was discovered, etc.  The first paragraph is 6 sentences, the first two are fine and what I expect, the next 4 sentences talk about its discovery and name.  I really expect to have that first paragraph have all the description content that's in the second paragraph:  Carnotaurus was a lightly built,[1] bipedal predator...  Consider ordering the lead this way:  make the first paragraph a description of the animal itself, the second paragraph should contain what is currently in the third paragraph ("The distinctive horns and the muscular neck...") that describes its adaptations and behaviors, and the third paragraph should be about the finding and condition of the skeleton.  Do you think that would make a more sensible layout?  ... Later adding:  Actually the lead layout is probably fine, it appears to match how FA dino articles are doing it.


 * Can you change "not unlike" to "like" or "similar to"... etc.?


 * " arguing that similar structures can be found on the neck of today's Iguana where they provided"... consider "the modern Iguana, where they provide"


 * Also, a number of the Bonaparte 1990 back-links do not work. They are lettered 'a' through 'w' but if you click on a few of them, like 'p' and 'q', you don't jump anywhere.  What's going on?
 * I do not know. I will ask somewhere for advice.
 * Alright, this isn't a stopper for GA but this needs to be fixed for FA.


 * Not required for GA but it'd be nice if you could clean up your refs a little... For example, the several entries for the books Glut's encyclopedia could be made consistent
 * will do that


 * What's the reason that Bonaparte 1990 is referenced both generally without page numbers as a numbered reference, and also with specific page numbers with a lettered reference?
 * The source for this sentence (A comprehensive description of the whole skeleton followed in 1990.) does not require specific page numbers because the whole work is meant. But the remaining two ones need more specific numbers. Will do that.