Talk:Xixiasaurus

Copy edit
Hi I have started the copy edit for GOCE, although it is such an enviously well written article that I don't think that I will have much to do. Obviously, if you don't like any of my changes feel free to revert them. If you don't understand why I have changed something, feel free to query me here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Only thing I have a question about is this change: "Several teeth are missing from the upper jaw, but their number can be determined, since their sockets are preserved." This was originally "Several teeth are missing, but their number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets are preserved", since teeth are missing from the lower jaw as well, but there their number cannot be determined (because the lower jaw is incomplete). FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you saw my comment here, ? I have modified the sentence about the teeth, hope it is clearer. By the way, I intend to send this to FAC as soon as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi FunkMonk, apologies for the delays on this, and yes, I did miss (or forget) the alert. I shall try to get the job finished tonight my (US) time, or tomorrow morning.
 * Teeth, I see now what you are saying, and there is no grammatical issue. However, it seems to beg the question of the lower teeth. Ie "Several teeth are missing" Fine. From both jaws I now know because you told me. "their number can be determined in the upper jaw". Fine. And the lower jaw? At the moment the reader does not know whether the teeth of the lower jaw are complete, all missing, partially missing; nor whether or not they can be similarly reconstructed. Obviously how you explain things is up to you, but I flag up that to my eye the prose here reads as if it were incomplete.
 * On this topic, in the relevant paragraph you discuss dentation, see above, go back to describing the elements of the head, then the dentation again. If I were copy editing it I would be inclined to recast the first part as something like:

"The holotype specimen is the only known Xixiasaurus fossil, and consists of an almost complete skull except for the hindmost portion, as well as a partial right forelimb. The connection between the frontal (forehead bone) and nasal (bone running at the upper length of the snout) bones is displaced, and part of the braincase is missing. Most of the snout is preserved, with the dentition of the right side being well-preserved. Though several teeth are missing, their original number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets there are preserved. Only the front part of the left dentary bone (tooth-bearing bone of the mandible) and some of its broken teeth are preserved."


 * I would still feel that something needed to be added re the lower teeth. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, what if the sentence "Though several teeth are missing, their original number can be determined in the upper jaw, since their sockets there are preserved." was moved last, so it comes after the sentence that explains that the lower jaw is incomplete? That would make it clearer why the number can't be determined there? FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Done.

Queries

 * Would it be appropriate to link "articulated" to Articulation (anatomy)?
 * Yes, as long as it is not in the context of an "articulated skeleton", which would give it another meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. It links in the sense of 'joint'.


 * If I am reading this correctly: "The bases of the crowns were less expanded behind the tenth maxillary tooth, and the teeth curved backwards and …" would it be helpful to a reader to either replace "and" with 'where', or "the" with 'these'?
 * Ah, it is actually two unrelated statements, would it be less misleading if "the teeth curved backwards and were compressed from side to side" came first? FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Done.


 * "due to sharing a maxillary process of the premaxilla that separated the maxilla". This gives a variant of maxill three times in nine words. I am not sure that 'a premaxillary process' is a permissible construction. If not, consider deleting "maxillary"; the location of the process is clear from context. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Premaxillary process" also exist and are mentioned in the text here, so it might be necessary top be very clear about where a process is located so not to confuse them. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Far better to have marginally awkward phrasing than misleading, or plain wrong, phrasing, so I will leave it.

Comments
Not copy edit issues per se, but I throw them in for you to make of them what you will.
 * "The nasal bones were elongated, 99.9 millimetres" A measurement of an anatomical feature of a fossil to one part in a thousand seems to me to be spurious accuracy, and you may want to consider rounding to 100 mm.
 * Fine for me if you round it up. I just took what the source said. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Xixiasaurus is estimated to have been around 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in)" Similarly, 1.5 m seems to be an approximate figure, and it may be appropriate to reflect this in the imperial conversion and round to 5 ft. (By inserting "|sigfig=1" into the convert template.)
 * Likewise, I don't mind if it is changed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Both done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As nice an article as I have ever worked on. I need to get some of your precision of description into my writing. I shall have one last look through it and sign it off. Good luck at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looking very good so far! Precision is of course much easier when you've only got dead stones to work with... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction?
How is anything known about the animal's second toe if the only known specimen lacks any of the hind leg's bones? --uKER (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By the fact that it is a troodontid; all troodontids with preserved toes have it. So following phylogenetic bracketing, it would have it too. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)