Talk:Xixiasaurus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * why do you have the skull image twice?
 * Hehe, I knew this would come up! It is actually not the same image; the one under palaeobiology have thick lines drawn directly over the photo (instead of the usual separate interpretive diagram), which I found annoying, since it obscures various details. In APP pdfs, text and diagrams are sometimes on a separate SVG layer of sorts than the photos, so the photos can be extracted without the text/lines, which I did for the version in the infobox to show the specimen more clearly. Usually I wouldn't have done this, but this is also a unusual case. Since both images are useful in their own right, and since there was plenty of room in the article, I thought it would be nice to include both. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, a size comparison diagram is in the works, which will be placed in the beginning of the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Diagram now added. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * a "how to pronounce the name" would be a nice-to-have
 * Yeah, I have no idea how to source that, though, but I just noticed that this Youtube video (which also uses a silhouette of the Wikipedia restoration) has the narrator pronouncing the name; whether it is correct or not, I have no idea... FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, who has contributed to the article (and who I assume knows the language based on edit history), knows of some resources for this? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IPA for the Mandarin "Xixia" can be generated with :  (approximately She-shia). I suppose a source is not needed for such an automatic conversion. -Zanhe (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! How did you generate it? FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just copy and paste the template to the page, although I'm not sure how to add the -saurus part to the output. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can it be combined with the "saurus" in the Brachiosaurus intro? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's possible to combine the output of two different IPA templates, other than copy-and-pasting the output manually. -Zanhe (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe knows how to combine it... FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate to combine Mandarin and English within a word. No-one would pronounce it that way unless they were code-switching. In a pronunciation section, we'd give the English pronunciation. That could be followed by "from Mandarin Xīxiá ", or probably better just a link to Xixia County, and put the Mandarin pronunciation there.
 * As for the English pronunciation, the narrator at that link says . That may be how it's anglicized, I don't know, assuming there even is an anglicized pronunciation yet. I suppose pronouncing Xixia with 3 syllables rather than the 2 it has in Mandarin is no different than pronouncing "Kyoto" and "Tokyo" with 3 syllables (kee-OH-toh and TOH-kee-oh), but the narrator also pronounces troodontid as rather than  -- like people who say "ZOO-ology" for "ZO-ology" -- though that's also very common these days, even among academics. So I don't see anything obviously wrong with "". — kwami (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the pronunciation to the lead. Modify it, move it, ref it, delete it etc as you please, of course -- I'm not part of the GA review! — kwami (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition, not sure how to source it, but such has rarely been questioned during FACs anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "HGM 41HIII−0201 in Henan Geological Museum" – woud be nice to know the town in which the museum is located
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When viewed from below, the lower margin at the front of the upper jaw formed a tapering U-shape, distinct from the shape in other troodontids. – what is the shape seen in other troodontids, then? Is "the lower margin at the front of" really necessary, or could it be removed? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to "When viewed from below, the front margin of the upper jaw", as the reader might not know which end is meant. I also added examples of other troodontid shapes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * the main part of that bone (which kept the maxilla from being part of the margin of the narial opening) – reads like the "which" would refer to the main part of the maxilla.
 * I split this into two sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The maxillary process of the premaxilla extended hindwards to the same level as the nasal process there. – Why the "there"? Both processes are at very different locations.
 * It was to explain that they are both parts of the premaxilla (as the nasal process isn't presented elsewhere, and the reader might not know where it is), but I have removed "there" now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The lower parts of the premaxillae were not fused together – but you already stated that the premaxillae are not fused at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Due to not being fused together, the premaxillae had a fissure along their lower midline" (that they were not fused has to be reiterated here for context, I think). FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * On the lower side, the maxilla formed an extensive shelf … – on the inner side?
 * The source says "Ventrally, the longitudinally extensive shelf of the maxilla contributes to the large secondary palate and it extends posteriorly from the contact with the premaxilla". I have of course simplified this a lot, but I don't think there would be conciser ways to translate "ventrally" in this context? FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * the fifteenth tooth was the largest, and those further back were smaller. – if the fifteenth tooth was the largest, all the others must be smaller. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, removed (the source only specified to clarify this is known only from the size of the alveoli, so not really relevant here because I don't go into that much detail about which teeth are preserved or not). FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Rest is all fine (I made some copy edits as I went). Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy edits, seems I had left some pretty indefensible mistakes in there! FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)