Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amargasaurus/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017.

Amargasaurus

 * Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A spectacular dinosaur from Argentina. We feel the article is ready to be nominated now, and are looking forward for comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, a dinosaur from my country. Good work with it. I'll give you a quick support but I recommend removing the red link. From my experience, they are not approved by guidelines. Also, if you have the time, could take a look at my own FAC, Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1, and provide some comments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments by Tintor2


 * Thank you! I started reading your article, but I have absolutely no idea about the subject, so I have to see if I will have any comments to share. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919
Giving this one a non-expert reading.

General:
 * You should provide alt text for the images.
 * done


 * In the references, some titles use sentence case, while others use title case. This should be consistent.
 * done


 * I recognize that some scientific terminology is needed to accurately describe the anatomy, especially the names of specific bones. And actually a lot of those terms appear to have lay descriptions provided when they are first used. But there seem to be some cases where untranslated professional terminology is used when there are reasonable substitutes that laypeople are more likely to understand. For example, instead of 'anteriormost' can can we not just say 'front' or 'forward'?
 * done

Description:
 * Since the function of the spines is not clear, the "Life restoration" image is one particular possibility for how they may have appeared, right? The caption should probably note that.
 * done

Discovery:
 * For those of us less familiar with Argentine geography, perhaps the sentence explaining the location of discovery could start with something general, like "The discovery site is located in southwestern Argentina, in the La Amarga Arroyo..." I know we can click on the links, but a few extra words makes it a less confusing read.
 * done


 * As mentioned above, I'm glad to see that most of the anatomical terms have links and/or non-technical descriptions. The term 'sacrum' could stand to have these added.
 * done

I'm about halfway through and need to step away, so I'm posting the comments I have so far. Will return for the back half. --RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the comments! Yes, non-expert readings is what we need, making it understandable for lay people is always the difficult part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally coming around for that follow-up read. The prose seems more readable, with explanations provided where needed. I made a few copyedits (and as usual please revert if needed). One final thing I think you should look at it is how multi-author papers are mentioned in the body text. One paper with three authors is called "Tschopp et al.", while another with three authors is "Daniela Schwarz and colleagues". I don't have a preference on this, but it should be consistent. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you for your all your comments and copyedits. I removed the "at al.", as I think that "and colleagues" is easier to understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on prose; thanks for your follow-ups. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * Great to finally see this here! I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!


 * I see some words are not linked the first time they are mentioned outside the intro (dicraeosaurid, Dicraeosaurus, Brachytrachelopan, etc.)
 * done


 * On the other hand, there are some words that are linked more than once in the article body, such as transverse processes, tetrapod, etc.
 * done


 * "the neck corresponds for 136%" Corresponds to?
 * done


 * Seems like mix past and present tense in the description ("Greatly elongated spines continue along the last two"), perhaps better to make it consistent throughout?
 * done


 * "In front of the eye socket, the antorbital fenestra would have been located" This seems a bit non-English, I'd switch the parts around, and remove the comma...
 * done


 * "(MACN-N 15)" I'd add "specimen" in front of the number.
 * done


 * "from the Dicraeosauridae" Maybe add "a member of the"?
 * done


 * has been published in 1991" "Was" instead of "has been" would sound like more correct English.
 * done


 * "and the recently described Brachytrachelopan", " A recent analysis by Tschopp" I think it is discouraged to write "recent", because this article will probably exist for many years to come, and it will mean little...
 * done


 * You give authorities in-text for some of the hypotheses in the Paleobiology section, but not for others, perhaps give for all? For example "Apart from the possible function in defense, the spines may had been used for display, either for the intimidation of rivaling conspecifics or for courtship".
 * done This is a hypothesis proposed by various authors, I added a second citation to make this clear.


 * "Other than those of pelycosaurs" Perhaps say "unlike those of".
 * done


 * The palobiology section also has a mix of past and present tense.
 * done


 * "Bailey suggests the spines to represent a scaffold" I'd say "suggested the spines represented a".
 * done


 * "rather than flatted" Flattened?
 * done


 * "the formation is famous for the cladotherian mammal" Famous seems a little strong here? "Notable" instead?
 * done


 * "Crocodylomorphs are present with the" Represented by?
 * done


 * "Within the Sauropoda, Amargasaurus is closely related to" Most closely related to? Closely seems a bit too definite?
 * done


 * "they could have supported skin sails or stuck out of the body as solitary structures supporting a keratinous sheath" Maybe reverse the mention of the two hypotheses, so the least supported one is last?
 * done


 * "dorsal vertebra to the foremost tail vertebrae still were strongly elongated" I think this means the elongation continued to this part, but the "still" makes it a little hard to understand?
 * done


 * That's about it from me. Good to see you back at FAC!
 * Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review FunkMonk, it has helped a lot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - this looks great to me now. You discuss feeding heights, but perhaps state somewhere that sauropods were herbivorous? Not sure if it's necessary or even stated in the sources, as this is pretty much taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review
I thought I'd have a quick look at the sources - there are a few things that should probably be fixed;
 * novas2009 and wilson2005 - should reference the page numbers using or something similar.
 * I used rp templates for other articles, but reviewers had reservations, stating that rp templates are "non-standard, and disrupt reading flow". So I stopped using them. There does not seem to be a very good alternative to give page numbers.


 * salgado1992 - has no issue number.
 * done


 * bonaparte1990 - no page reference
 * done


 * tschopp2015 - is this not the same reference as TMB2015?
 * done


 * taylor2005, sereno2007 - blank URL parameter.
 * done


 * mazzetta1999 - uses both  and   parameters.
 * done

Overall, there is a lack of consistency in the order of parameters used (e.g.  vs  ) - it would be preferable to use the template parameters in the same order for each template, using, for example, the order given at Template:Cite journal.
 * This would be quite a nasty thing to do manually. If consistency is desirable here, this could be better implemented in Citation bot or something. I'm not sure if this is issue is urgent for now.
 * I've standardized all the references . The only differences now are between the cite book and cite journal formats.  IJReid  discuss 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

These minor nitpicks shouldn't detract from the fact that the article as a whole is smashing; a really interesting, well-written article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Yunshui 雲 水 13:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose While the article generally appears well-developed, without specific page numbers for references WP:V isn't met. It simply isn't practical for readers to follow up on the sources here. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Not providing specific page numbers for journal articles is standard for dinosaur and many other science articles. I am afraid that without a standardized technical implementation of specific page numbers (in addition to the obligatory page range for the whole paper), with which everybody is happy, including my fellow editors in the dinosaur project, I can't do anything here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this needs wider discussion then, I've been told in several other FACs that page numbers were not necessary for journal articles, unless they were really long. An example of how this was done before can be seen in for example Heterodontosaurus and Rodrigues starling. I think recent precedents have to be taken into account. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For journals I reckon the relevant page range is fine; in most cases a journal article is only around ten pages or so - readers could be expected to look through the entire article (or just use Ctrl+F with online versions). For books, the lack of page references is a deal-breaker for me, I'm afraid; Wilson has around 350 page and Novas nearly 500, and that's too large a range to source individual facts in an article. From WP:V: - "somewhere in these 350 pages" is not sufficiently precise. If you aren't a fan of, then  might be a usable alternative. Yunshui 雲 水  09:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible technically to provide exact page numbers for journal articles using the template - provide the full biographical reference in a 'works consulted' or similar section, and then use sfn or similar for individual references. Alternately, it can be easily done manually. This is standard (indeed, expected) in humanities FAs. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the books we need precise page numbers, I absolutely agree, I just forgot – they are added now. The problem remains with long journal articles. I personally would prefer since it is easy. Regarding FunkMonk's suggestion: The problem I see is that, as a reader, you will not get the full citation but only something like "Hume, J. P. (2014). pp. 55–58.", and than have to search for the full citation in the references list by yourself. And regarding sfn: Well, this is quite complex (two separate reference lists, its much more difficult for other editors to make changes to the article), it perhaps makes little sense if you only have very few citations where you need more precise page ranges. I don't know, I haven't seen a very good solution yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a split between two sections is actually easily manageable, and quite common. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, from a quick sample of some recent science-focused FAs it looks like the practice used in this article is fairly common, so I don't think that my position here is sustainable. This strikes me as a very poor practice given Wikipedia's readership (especially the many students who use it as a starting point for their own research), but I'm being unfair by opposing this individual article. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that this is a problem, but I think we first need to discuss this in the dinosaur project, to find a solution which is fine for everybody, so that we have a common approach at least within the project. I will keep an eye on the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would need an even wider discussion than that, as it won't only affect dinosaur articles, but everything sent to FAC that uses journal sources... FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the source issues I raised have been fixed, and that the article as a whole is a great read, I am happy to Support this nomination. Yunshui 雲 水 10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose by Lingzhi
Oppose per 1c.


 * Page ranges. I don't agree they're OK to skip for journals, unless those journals are perhaps 2 or 3 pages long. Ditto book chapters. I think it was Johnbod who mentioned on WT:FAC that the referencing goals/needs of professional reviewers/publications are different than those of Wikipedia... I listed pages once, and can do so again, but right off the bat I see Upchurch,  Barrett, & Dodson (2004) at about 63 or so. Wikipedia's readers are not in the field, and its referencing needs are not the same as readers/authors in the field... I do not think it is unfair to single out one article (see Nick-D, above), because 1) Fixing this is maybe maybe a 2-hour job at most. [NOTE: I gave you a good start here, with all categories and good article removed because in userspace.]. This is not an undue burden [unless you don't have the sources, at which point it becomes very difficult... do you have all the sources?]. 2) The process needs to start "somewhere".  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added specific page numbers using the rp-template for the longest articles (50+ pages). Would that be a compromise for the time being for this nomination? Let's discuss your suggestion on the FAC discussion page (where you already elaborated on it), I will give an answer there soon.
 * I replied at length on WT:FAC. Short version, yes of course it would be a compromise, because it does provide page numbers. But I would want to see it applied much more fully. Sources with (arbitrarily choosing a small number) 3 or fewer pages could go without page numbers, as a compromise, but more than (arbitrarily) 3 would need your rps. And man, that template output is ugly and confusing. But... it does provide the information in some manner or other. So the answer is "yes, but more often, please."  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "weapon both against predators and conspecifics". What does that mean? I went to conspecific and that didn't really clarify the meaning in context, so a wikilink may not be sufficient. Can you please go through and find other obscure or specialized  terms like this and amend? You can do it far more readily than I can.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I fixed it. That's why we need reviews: I'm not a native speaker, and sometimes just don't know which terms are daily language and which are more critical for a non-expert audience. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Basal" could use a footnote. But you don't have a footnote section. I think a wikilink would be insufficiently explanatory. Judgment call. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the nice copyedits! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I have missed it in the discussion above, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: With five supports, I think we have a consensus to promote. There is one oppose, and some reservations from Nick-D regarding the use of page ranges in citations. There was an inconclusive discussion regarding this issue at WT:FAC, but I'm not sure it is helpful or fair to use this FAC as a "test case". But, neither have I a wish to set a precedent: I would consider an oppose on the grounds of page ranges to be actionable at FAC in future, but there would need to be a clear consensus among reviewers that not having the requested page range did not meet WP:V and therefore criterion 1c. I do not think we have that here or at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.