Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phosphatodraco/archive1

Phosphatodraco

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about an azhdarchid, the pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.


 * "The specimen was made the holotype of the new genus and species Phosphatodraco mauritanicus in 2003;" Suggest wikilinking holotype
 * Of course, done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "In 2020, the paleontologists Claudio Labita and David M. Martill" I don't think "the" is needed here? It sounds weird to me, but it might just be personal preference.
 * Yeah, whatever version I use,someone will always have issues with it, so I just do it at random and stick to it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "A 2015 article by the paleontologist Mátyás Vremir and colleagues" is this Mátyás Vremir? If so, wikilink.
 * Nice, overlooked there was an article, linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "The left postexapophysis is placed at the side of the condyle" can postexapophysis be wikilinked to Exapophyses?
 * Linked already at "left postexapophysial process (which connected with the preexapophys at the front of the preceding vertebra)" which explains both kinds. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for review,, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. My concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've just added an extra image at the end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Jens

 * It was one of the only known azhdarchids preserving a relatively complete neck, – why past tense, is the specimen lost?
 * Just confusion I guess, changed to present. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them – maybe add a full stop to avoid that very long sentence?
 * Split. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As an azhdarchid, it would have had a proportionally long neck, small body, and long limbs. – You already have "Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs, while their bodies and feet were small." elsewhere in the introduction, combine the two?
 * Combined. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs – maybe start a new paragraph here? This does not relate to the previous sentence anymore.
 * I prefer three paragraphs for shorter articles, and since the combination of the sentences suggested above made it shorter, I think it might be better now anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Shortened further per comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * wing-elements – should it be "wing elements"?
 * Removed, but I can't say I understand much about when to hyphenate or not... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is larger than azhdarchid such as – "azhdarchids"?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * that were much longer than wider – "wide"?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * low skulls that were much longer than wider, and some that were much shorter, – much shorter than what? I assume it is not supposed to mean "much shorter than wide"? (Aren't they all much longer than wide?)
 * Specified as "very long, low skulls that were up to ten times longer than wide, and some that were much shorter than that, closer to those of other pterosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Combined, the long wing metacarpals and legs made azhdarchids relatively taller than other pterosaurs – when walking, right? Not taller when flying.
 * No doubt, the source just says "The combined long legs and elongated wing metacarpal gives azhdarchids longer limbs and taller frames, relatively speaking, than other pterosaurs (fig. 25.10)", but the caption of that figure specifies they're depicted as standing, so I thought it was ok to add "when standing". FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that if Kellner's suggestion that the series actually represents vertebrae C3-C8, – is an "is correct" missing here?
 * Ah, of course, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * the ratio between the maximum length of the vertebrae/the front width between – "and" instead of "/"?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * is about 4.3 (C5), 4.1 (C6) – "is about 4.3 in C5 and 4.1 in C6"?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * all lying at the same plane – "in the same plane"?
 * Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola – add the Kellner number in brackets, as done with the other vertebrae?
 * I'm actually a bit unsure about this one. Witton and Naish show what they say is the "complete neck" here based on Kellner, but it actually excludes the posteriormost preserved vertebra, which is the C9 of the original describers. So I don't know if this means they would actually consider it the first dorsal instead? Or maybe it's just because that vertebra isn't preserved in a way that they can include it, since it's only visible in front view in the fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I went with the assumption that Kellner would consider it a cervical anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * File:Characteristics of azhdarchid cervical vertebrae.png – indicate the length of the scale bars in the image description on Commons?
 * It isn't given in the paper's caption: FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Witton and Naish suggested that their more generalist lifestyle could explain the group's resilience compared to other pterosaur lineages, which did not survive until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids – if I remember correctly this is now somewhat outdated (Longrich study from Morocco)?
 * Changed to "which were not thought to have survived until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids did". Then as the text is chronological, the Longrich study should show ideas have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * with aquatic environments, such as rivers, lakes, marine, or off-shore – I found this mixture of nouns and adjectives a bit confusing.
 * Added a noun for the last two words, if that helps. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * but Witton thought this unlikely due to the terrestrial bias of their fossils – the previous text suggest the opposite, an absence from terrestrial environments?
 * There is a disagreement in the literature that is only now being published, so Witton refers to the earlier ideas proposed in his 2008 paper. Only in 2021 does there seem to have been refutation of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. But for now, I just added "supposed" before "terrestrial bias" to show uncertainty. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Their proportions indicate they were not good swimmers on the other hand, and while they could probably launch from water, they were not as good at this as some other pterosaur groups. – Attribute this (and other claims in this paragraph) to Witton? Not sure if it is really universally accepted.
 * Everything under locomotion is basically Witton, but made one more attribution in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's all from me. Nice work as always! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everything should now be addressed, . FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

 * The lead is very long for an article of this size Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cut a bunch of sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said at GA, I still have a gripe with Mauretania being described as "Latin for North Africa", because the name Mauretania refers to the land of the Mauri whose kingdom extended only across the western North African coast before becoming a client of the Roman Empire. The statement "Latin for North Africa" is false, it's Latin for "Mauri territory" or "land of the Mauri" etc. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to put down "the specific name refers to the region of Mauretania" and then use a different source not related to Phosphatodraco to quickly say what Mauretania means. I'm curious what others think about this Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, or simply say the describers gave this etymology, but other sources specify something else. Got any sources for it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move the refs around, because right now it looks like the describers support the statement "while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco," but tomorrow or day after I'll try to find a better wording if I can Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's the case, the refs are in the same order as the statements in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Other than that, support Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Coord note
I think we're awaiting a source review. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake, please do, otherwise Funk, best add a request at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review

 * "Alexander W. A., Kellner" – are given name and sure name swapped here?
 * Yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, in another reference, the names are spelled out: "Kellner, Alexander Wilhelm Armin". This could be consistent.
 * Made consistent, most of these were automatically generated. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Source 26 now is part of a volume (volume 140) that should be added.
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "from the Upper Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco" – "Upper" and "Phosphates" need to be lower case.
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Other than these nitpicks, all formatting seems to be ok. All sources are of high quality, and all relevant sources have been cited as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the above should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, all looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)