Talk:Stegoceras/GA1

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 02:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this will take a while to go through fully. I have to say though, it looks pretty good right now. First comments coming up soon. IJReid discuss 02:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick! There's a little bit I want to add to the dome function section (today), but might take some time for you to reach that part.. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And added... Don't forget to check for non-Canadianisms! FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem with that. IJReid  discuss 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead comments
 * I think the age should be ordered "77.5 to 74" mya, as is done in the paleoecology section in the article, and elsewhere in other articles
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * the link should go to "Late Cretaceous" instead of "Cretaceous"
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "...were described in 1902, and the type species is Stegoceras validum." would make more sense, and flow better as "...were described in 1902, as the type species Stegoceras validum"
 * Wouldn't that imply that thse specimens are the type species? FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe "were described in 1902 as the type species S. validum". IJReid  discuss 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of has the same problem, it implies that these specimens are the type species, whereas the species/name is simply based on them... I have reworded it accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the first mention of S. validum is boldface, shouldn't the first mention of S. novomexicanum be as well?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "...New Mexico in 2011, remain." probably should add "valid" at the end of that sentence
 * Most of them were just moved to other genera, so they were never considered invalid as species... So I think the current wording is more inclusive? FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the current wording works fine. But maybe mention that many species were separated into different genera. IJReid  discuss 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Occiput should be linked in the lead, few layman likely know what it is
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

the rest of the lead looks solid. Will add description comments soon. IJReid discuss 02:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Description

 * First glaring thing I notice, the entire size discussion is based on S. validum, probably should add a bit on S. novomexicanum.
 * All we know is that it was smaller (only known from domes); this is mentioned lower down in the section, but I have now moved it up instead. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This reminds me, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566711630012X, a paper that is all about S. novomexicanum. Apparently it is just one dome. IJReid  discuss 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah, haven't seen that one, thanks! Seems I have to request it... Seems some of this article needs to be rewritten... FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, just got it, it's hot off the press, published July 2016... I'll try to edit the article accordingly before I go to bed... I knew something like this was going to happen, but not in the middle of GAN! Brings back memories of the Apatosaurus FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. I actually have ScienceDirect access through the Wiki Library, so if you need I can help. Not a whole lot will be changed yet, but you should note how uncertain the placement is, and note the phylogenetic analysis of Evans (2013) was much less resolved without the inclusion of the assigned specimens. IJReid  discuss 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The ontogenetic stage and diagnosis is also in question, so the stuff about it being smaller as an adult and how it is distinct needs some kind of tip-toey rewrite... Will be a bit tricky... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now made the changes I wanted to make according to the new paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to have UALVP 2 in brackets, why but if its not worth putting in main text, just remove it
 * As is explained under history, this specimen needs to be known by a name because basically everything we know about the anatomy of Stegoceras is based on this one specimen... Everything else is just isolated domes. So when we describe size, limbs, etc, it is actually just a description of UALVP 2... But I have added the species to the brackets, to show that it is the best known species as well... FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that seems fine. IJReid  discuss 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took it out of the brackets and elaborated a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you keep UALVP 2, link the museum thats abbreviated
 * I'm thinking it would be better to mention the institutions under history? FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm just used to "link at first mention" stuff. IJReid  discuss 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I spelled out the names of the institutions of the most important specimens, and linked those, under history. So the full names have their first occurrences down there... FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Explain the term "double-headed" I think this means both articulations are equal of size and robust, but not sure, and I doubt laymen would know better.
 * Removed, the source doesn't elaborate, and it has little meaning to most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: is "myorhabdoi" of similar etymology to Rhabdodon? If so, do rhabdodontids have this feature?
 * The Rhabdodon page says it means "fluted tooth", so "rhabd" must mean fluted... And refer to the shape of the teeth in the ornithopod, and not some skeletal feature. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Link other more obscure anatomical terms (deltopectoral crest etc)
 * No article to link, so linked the individual muscles that attach to the structure. Other terms that should be linked? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Add why the radius being more robust than the ulna "unusual"
 * I think the article doesn't elaborate much on this and the below, but I'll look again... FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The source only says "The radius of Stegoceras is unusual in being more heavily constructed than the ulna; only its proximal end is smaller than that of the ulna." What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, any sources somewhere that say "in most dinosaurs the ulna are more robust" to just tack that on? IJReid  discuss 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of... We could remove the info, but it seems to be significant? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, explain why features are "unusual"
 * Made the wording more neutral, as in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Replace "hind-wards" with "rear"
 * Seems Jerry got this one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats all for the main description section, skull and stuff later. IJReid discuss 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any comments on the "skull" section, so I'm going straight to History of Discovery. IJReid  discuss 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, though any nitpicks are welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

History

 * "As no similar remains had been found in the area before", I'm pretty sure no similar remains had been found in the entire globe. If theres a reference for that, add it
 * If you look at the Pachycephalosaurus article, a squamosal bone (type of Tylosteus) was actually collected as early as 1859, but only identified as belonging to Pachycephalosaurus in 1979... But I think that would be too much of a tangent for this here article... FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. IJReid  discuss 15:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, which I just remembered as relevant here, one of the three specimens that were the basis of Stegoceras is soon to be named Foraminacephale, which means that animal has been known as long as Stegoceras... FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "confirmed Hatcher's interpretation", I'm pretty sure it was Nopcsa that suggested the frontoparietal arrangement
 * Nopcsa thought it was the nasal and the frontal, not parietal and frontal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * a mention of Troodon needs to be italicized
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there no more discussion of ''S. bexelli"?
 * It is just a fragmentary dome (now presumed lost, and not considered part of this genus anymore), what kind of info are you thinking of? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering if there was anything to elaborate on, or if it can only really be a brief mention here. IJReid  discuss 15:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see what you're getting at, but the most recent evaluation seems to consider it closer to Prenocephale than to Stegoceras, if diagnostic at all. What I have done with other species that have been removed from Stegoceras (lambei, edmontonensis, brevis, etc.) is to stop mention of them after the point where they are moved to other genera, as they are thereafter not relevant to this article's subject anymore (and there's a pretty big mess with those species being constantly moved around between other genera). FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Based on the small, disarticulated bony elements found with UALVP 2, Stegoceras was long thought to have had gastralia (abdominal ribs), which is not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs. After such structures were identified in the tail of Homalocephale in 1974, they were henceforward interpreted as ossified tendons" I'd move this up to the paragraph on the specimen, before the mention os the possible chimaera, where it makes more sense
 * Since the latter part would mess with the chonological order, I've split it up instead... FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "...specimen a juvenile, but it was considered a new genus of pachycephalosaur by Williamson and Carr in 2002". Um, wouldn't a 2002 opinion go before a 2006 one?
 * Yep, changed order and elaborated a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats surprisingly all I have to say about the history, nicely written and summed up. IJReid discuss 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As you know, it was hell to write... I'll address the issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Classification

 * Starting here now, I "found" a paper that includes a pretty comprehensive analysis of Pachycephalosauria, though it is only a PrePrint right now: https://peerj.com/preprints/1369/ More comments to come. IJReid  discuss 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to be camping from August 2nd to 9th, so I will not be able to add more comments until then. IJReid  discuss 05:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting and congrats with that paper (I remember an earlier version of it, and I kind of regret basing my early restorations here too much on skeletals, such as that Homalocephale), but you seem to be a bit at odds with the current consensus among pachycephalosaur workers (not just Horner and friends) that flat-headed taxa are simply juveniles, and that this feature has no taxonomic value? FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess, but its hard to find a decent matrix when all you have are postcranial bones among pachycephalosaurs. IJReid  discuss 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reviewer there of course, but maybe it would be good to mention that you aware of that consensus in the paper, so you don't get critique for it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can. Also, once it is peer-reviewed, we can probably go ahead and add the clades in, including Stegoceratinae. IJReid  discuss 00:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems such a clade has also been found before... But it seems pachycephalosaur taxonomy is a huge mess at the moment right now, due to the shitty (to be frank) remains we're left with, and the different ways they are interpreted (also seems some of the main workers are sort of rivals?)... Maybe when that Sandy specimen is described... FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A description of the Sandy specimen was presented in an abstract in 1995, I have the abstract, but, not much is described. The only real info I could find for the codings was in Horner & Goodwin (2009), and photos and a 3D model online. I have to agree at the state of stuff, and I may even go so far as an entirely separate paper based entirely on a revised phylogeny, and I can guess which taxa (Stegoceras for one) will be split up. IJReid  discuss 01:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Back from camping, have comments coming in. IJReid discuss 06:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope it was a good trip! Found any fossils? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I came across one of like seven dinosaur fossils at the Royal British Columbia Museum, and got photos of it (Ornithomimid? caudal vert), the only real dinosaur fossil on display around here. Also got photos of lots of mammoth and relative bones, an Allosaurus skull with a cool crankable lower jaw and a cast Tyrannosaurus and Pteranodon. Gonna upload those here once there on my computer. Would have gotten a lot better and more stuff if the stupid employees at Telus World of Science got the timing right for the Ultimate Dinosaurs exhibit that visited there, they all had different ideas when it was. IJReid  discuss 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any front view of the Allosaurus skull? Always thought we needed one, to show how narrow it is, and the picture I took which is in the article isn't so good... FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not totally sure. I know I thought about it though, so maybe I did. I probably got one of the best pictures we will get for several of the probiscideans, but the skulls were all in glass cases so I couldn't use flash. IJReid  discuss 18:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It should probably be modified to state that Dong (1978) named the family Homalocephaleridae, which was later corrected to Homalocephalidae by Perle et al (1982).
 * Hmmm, he still gets credit for the taxon in the Perle paper, so I'm thinking that level of detail would be more relevant in the higher taxon Pachycephalosauria article? Stegoceras is not even in that clade either, so it is marginally relevant, I think... But yeah, if the text had said Dong named the group like that, it should have clarification... FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple "named Homalocephaleridae (later emended to Homalocephalidae by Perle)" should be good. (Note spelling of emended, canadianisms) IJReid  discuss 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Added (originally spelled Homalocephaleridae) to make i extra brief, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks fine. IJReid  discuss 18:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont know if there is enough evidence to change it, but Wannanosaurus was clearly incorrectly interpreted as Sullivan (2006) as Maastrichtian. Sullivans age, used by Evans et al (2013) and other recent studies, was referenced to a review of asian formations, where Wannanosaurus was listed in the Maastrichtian section as it was the only from an uncertain age, and thus placed at the end of the Mesozoic. The only true, original age comes from a chinese paper on asian formations, which placed Wannanosaurus as early Campanian. Up to you to change this. IJReid  discuss 06:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but since we don't mention that taxon outside the cladogram, I guess it makes little difference here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I guess Wannanosaurus isn't mentioned in that paragraph so it doesn't make a difference. However, I think Amtocephale should be included as it is the oldest asian pachycephalosaur (84-83 mya sensu Watabe et al (2011)). IJReid  discuss 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Was about to add it, but I'm not sure, because our text talks about oldest fully domed taxa specifically (in contrast to for example Stegoceras, where the "shelf" is supposedly left out of the dome), and the extent of doming in Amtocephale isn't known, as it is incomplete and probably immature... "The pachycephalosaurid Amtocephale gobiensis (MPC-D 100/1203) is a small domed pachycephalosaurid, based on the fusion of the frontals and fused frontoparietal complex. The missing peripheral elements (supraorbitals, postorbitals, squamosals) are not fused, which suggests that it probably is a subadult individual." So it isn't really a good enough specimen to be used as evidence in the debate, and it appears it hasn't been either, which would be crucial for inclusion... FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thats fine. IJReid  discuss 18:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Paleobiology
Okay, now that classification is all done, onto paleobiology. I have read both the diet and ontogeny sections so far, and I only have one query: IJReid  discuss 01:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph for the diet section seems to be choppy sentences. Several could be merged together, and it would flow better. IJReid  discuss 01:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Better? LittleJerry (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. IJReid  discuss 16:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess its mostly a policy to have you guys check and approve my edits, even if they are only typo fixes: and .  IJReid  discuss 16:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Is it really not possible to use "ise" in Canadian English? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Canadian english uses "ize", like hypothesize, theorize, realize. AFAIK, we never use any words with the suffix "ise" (not counting wise or rise etc.). IJReid  discuss 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. By the way, I just added some text from a paper we had previously overlooked... FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still reads fine, don't think I have anything to say on that. IJReid  discuss 21:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, what do you think about the level of detail the text has? Especially description and dome function, do you think it would be hard for readers to understand? And the dome function section is very dense, I purposely wrote it as a chronological review of the literature because I found that to make most sense, as they refer to each other, and it shows a kind of "dialogue" between the sources, but others might have divided it into sections about each theory, I just don't think that would work as well... FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I may not be the best to gauge the detail, but the description section seems totally fine. I agree that in this situation righting chronologically makes more sense, because it would allow people to understand what changes have occurred between the first proposal and what is considered likely now. If you want, I can request a second opinion from a layman on the topic. IJReid  discuss 15:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think we'll get plenty of layman opinions at the FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no comments on the Paleoecology section, it seems just fine as is. Any things you are unsure about, or shall I give this article a green plus? IJReid  discuss 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! One thing I've been unsure of is whether to put a question mark after S. novomexicanum in the taxobox? Perhaps premature. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No reason to yet, only one study suggesting it as a possibility. This article is now good. IJReid  discuss 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)