Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Argentinosaurus/archive1

Argentinosaurus

 * Nominator(s):, Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The possibly largest known dinosaur. Argentinosaurus was described in 1993 by the important paleontologist José Bonaparte, who sadly passed away this week. The article is a GA, got a GOCE copy edit, and a thorough peer-review. We are looking forward to any comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably should add that this is also my first time at FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - I did a pre-FAC peer review on the talk page with the FAC criteria in mind, and it looks good to me now. As one additional point, the life restorations and size diagrams should probably have citations in the Commons descriptions, stating that they match published reconstructions and size estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up several of the images, particularly the diagrams
 * How wide should they be? (I assume that you mean adding something along the lines of adding "|500px|" to the wikitext) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this shouldn't be done using a fixed px size, but rather upright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done; hope this looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Argentinosaurus_BW.jpg would benefit from sourcing
 * I'm not sure what the author originally used for proportional references, but perhaps can tell us what he used as a guide for updating it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a minor update to that image and will update the description to include reference info.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Argentinosaurus.jpg: link in the description is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do here. Pinging for advice. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done; I just repaired the link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Nb: I intend to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.


 * The skeletal reconstruction tells a reader what the white and the green represents; what about the grey and the blue?
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * References: at a skim, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs lacks a publisher; Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages lacks a publisher location; as does Revision of South American Titanosaurid Dinosaurs: Palaeobiological, Palaeobiogeographical and Phylogenetic Aspects; and Apesteguía; ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. There may be others.
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "about 8 km (5.0 mi) east of Plaza Huincul" Could we lose the ".0"?
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I shall try to do a full review tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "39.7 metres" seems spuriously accurate. What does the source say? Similarly "Holtz gave a higher length estimate of 36.6 metres" in the main text.
 * You are absolutely right that this is false precision, but this is what the sources give. I guess this is because these estimations commonly do not include an error calculation. We can of course round it, but then we would deviate from the source, and this can come with WP:OR issues. We already had discussions on this issue; the consensus always was that we should give the precision of the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I was just demonstrating that I was paying attention. If the sources are being silly, then I agree that all we can do is pass their silliness along.


 * "Additional specimens include" Optional: → 'Further specimens included'.
 * "and Argentine palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria" Suggest 'and Argentine the palaeontologist Rodolfo Coria' to avoid false title. (Likewise in the main text.)
 * Do you mean "the Argentine palaeontologist"? I've changed this and all comparable occurences to that form within the article now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. I do, I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The verb tense in the second third paragraph of the lead seems a little odd. "Arguments revolved around": why is the past tense used? Are the arguments now resolved? "though the model needed some improvement" I really don't know what this is trying to communicate. (Although I may slap my forehead once you tell me.) "and contained a diverse dinosaur fauna" - do they no longer contain it?
 * I'm not totally sure here either. Pinging . --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This still needs resolving.
 * Tricky, yes. "Arguments revolved around" because we are talking about published papers here. All these arguments were presented in the past. However, this is indeed a case of ongoing debate, the last paper on the topic was published recently. Changed it to present tense. "The model needed some improvement" was meant to emphasise the preliminary nature of the model, but removed this now. The last point, "contained a diverse dinosaur fauna", is past tense because all that stuff has been excavated already. We don't know whats in the formation before excavating it. I would be totally fine with using present tense here though if you recommend it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see how one might wish to use contained to fit in with "deposited", and if pushed hard I would back off, but I feel that 'contain' works better for our mythical average reader.
 * Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Image caption: "Size comparison of selected giant sauropod dinosaurs, Argentinosaurus in red and second from the right" Cough!
 * Oops. ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The mass of the blue whale, however, still exceeds that of all known sauropods." It may be helpful to a reader to be told what the mass of a blue whale is.
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "As in many other titanosaurs, the vertebrae were cancellous (internally lightened by numerous small air-filled chambers), which was possibly related to increased body size and neck length" OK, so I know why it is possibly related, but you ought to tell a general reader.
 * Added explanation. Hopefully this helps. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Link hyposphene-hypantrum articulations.
 * This is already linked on its first mention. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "it differed from typical titanosaurids in the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" "in the presence of" doesn't look very user friendly for the lay reader. Maybe 'in possessing' or similar?
 * In a previous nomination, I was advised against the use of the verb "possess" in this context; will therefore change to "in having", hope this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine.


 * "that included more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria" A genuine query, should that be 'that included the more derived (evolved) members of Titanosauria'?
 * Probably better, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "to extract a maximum of energy and increased protection against predators" A comma after "energy" would be helpful.
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "size increases in the evolution of sauropods were commonly followed by size increases of their predators" 1. What does "size increases in the evolution of sauropods" mean. I see what you are getting at, but maybe reword?
 * Does "increase in sauropod size over time" sound better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It does. Could you make it so?


 * "It was originally reported from the Huincul Group of the Río Limay Formation" maybe "reported from" → 'excavated from' or 'found in' or similar?
 * Well, here "reported from" is used in the sense of "it was said to come from." I'm using "originally" here because these deposits were later renamed, so I think that changing reported to excavted might make it sound like the fossils were later dug up somewhere else. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * "Vertebrates are most commonly found in the lower region of the formation." Maybe add ', and therefore older' after "lower"? (And should "region" be plural?)
 * Added, region here describes the entire lower part of the formation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Link form. (From "and some unnamed forms.")
 * Hmm... I'm not sure if that's the definition of "form" I was aiming for - I've changed it to variety. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Several iguanodonts were also present in the Huincul Formation." "were"?
 * Changed to "are" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Very readable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I see steady work on this. Could you ping me when you're ready for me to go through your responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Apesteguía still lacks a publisher location.
 * ISBNs are still inconsistently hyphenated.
 * Question Can/should we really unify ISBN hyphenation? The hyphens (block size) have a meaning, and WP:ISBN states: Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Most reviewers interperate that as requiring consistency within an article. However, so long as you have consistently copied the hyphenation/spacing in the actual work I am happy. (Other reviewers may differ.)


 * Is Argentinosaurus singular or plural? I am thinking of "The fragmentary nature of Argentinosaurus remains make their interpretation difficult."
 * Here "their" refers to the remains, I believe, not Argentinosaurus itself. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. OK.

I like all of your changes. One unaddressed point outstanding above, and the three minor issues immediately above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being so slow with this. Lately real life was quite stressful. I'm on it. Thank you so much for all those comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. So far as I am concerned you can take as long as you wish. And you definitely made the correct decision in commenting on my FAC rather than responding on your own. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We have addressed everything now I hope. Please let us know if there are further queries! Thanks for your help, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. Nice work. A fine, readable and informative article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Argentinosaurus is widely considered one of the largest-known land animals of all time". I do not like "widely considered". There can only be a comparatively small number of people qualified to give an opinion. I suggest deleting "widely considered".
 * True, removed.


 * " A scientific excavation of this site". "this site" implies that you have mentioned a site before. How about "the site"?
 * OK, changed.


 * "The pace gait links to an article which does not explain pace gait.
 * The link takes you directly to the relevant article section "Pace" which is about the pace gait only. The section starts directly with an explanation/definition: "The pace is a lateral two-beat gait. In the pace, the two legs on the same side of the horse move forward together". Should we explain it also in the Argentinosaurus article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest just changing "In the pace" in the target article to "In the pace gait" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this even commonly referred to as a pace gait, ? To quote the article directly: "However the phase difference was very small and the gaits generated were very close to a pace, particularly when the cycle time was reduced." It seems like this form of locomotion is more commonly referred to just as a pace, so perhaps we should change it in the article to just pace? I've already changed it in Palaeobiology, but I'm not sure what to do with the lead ("with a pace" sounds kind of strange). Perhaps "when pacing"? I must admit that I'm no expert on horse gait. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, see . Just "Pace" works as well of course, but that word also has other meanings so people may wonder what we want to say. "Pace gait" is more comprehensible, I would prefer to keep that. If we should/are allowed to change it in the horse gait article I don't know … We need much more articles on gaits anyways at some point, there is more than just horses. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not find "pace gait" comprehensible and I think you need to either change it in this article or specifically define it either in this article or the article you link to. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, definition is now also included in the lead, I hope it is clear now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The specimen, the holotype of A. huinculensis, is catalogued under the specimen number MCF-PVPH 1.[4] Bonaparte and Coria described the limb bone discovered in 1987 as an eroded tibia (shin bone), although the Uruguayan palaeontologist Gerardo Mazzetta and colleagues reidentified this bone is a left fibula in 2004." This is confusing. You say "The specimen", but only explain what specimen in the next sentence, and then refer to it as a limb bone when you have been more specific above. Maybe "The holotype of A. huinculensis is the fibula discovered in 1987; it is catalogued under the specimen number MCF-PVPH 1.[4] Bonaparte and Coria described it as an eroded tibia (shin bone), but the Uruguayan palaeontologist Gerardo Mazzetta and colleagues reidentified it as a left fibula in 2004, and their interpretation has been generally accepted."
 * No, all aforementioned bones belong to the holotype specimen. Reorganised now, is it clearer? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I suggest moving the sentence about the holotype to follow "the same individual." and starting a new paragraph for "Separating fossils from the very hard rock..." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You mention many reconstructions. Is there any indication which are most widely accepted?
 * Not without diving into original research, unfortunately. Possibly the most recent one of Paul (2019) is the best, as it is the most rigorous, but only the future will tell if this is going to be widely accepted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The second sacral rib was the largest preserved". The largest of any titanosaur?
 * No, just the largest in this individual/specimen. Clarified. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is very much a non-expert review, as much of the article was too technical for me to understand. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this review; non-expert reviews are crucial, as only they can highlight ambiguous/confusing parts. That most of the article was too technical to understand is, however, not good news. If you could point out sections that were especially difficult, I will see what I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not any particular section, but the number of technical terms. You do link and explain them, but the sheer number of such terms is beyond me - and I think would be beyond most readers - to remember the definitions when reading the whole article. Take a sentence such as "Another contentious issue is the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations, accessory joints between vertebrae that were located below the main articular processes." You link both terms but it would still take investigation for non-expert to work out what it means, and doing that for every technical sentence would make the article slow and difficult to read. The reader will also need to remember the definition of "hyposphene-hypantrum articulations" when the term is used later in the article. These are common problems with technical articles and I do not think there is an easy solution. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Has there been a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not anything extensive yet. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review
Headbomb's tool showed a low-level concern about the several Researchgate refs, so I checked those, and all seem to be of a good quality, no concerns there. All the references were of a suitably academic standard and appropriately used. I checked half a dozen and all confirmed the statements they were referencing. I couldn't see any formatting errors, so all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)