Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plateosaurus/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 SandyGeorgia 19:50, 9 January 2012.

Plateosaurus

 * Nominator(s): HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has matured over time, and many people have made minor improvements since GA status. This includes edits with improvements based on a review of the identical German wikipedia article that ended in an "excellent" rating.

Being the world's expert on Plateosaurus biomechanics I do not know of any recent studies of significance that are not covered in the article, and thus believe the content to be as complete as befits an excellent article. I had several native speakers and colleagues read through the article; whereas all had minor gripes, there seemed not to be any consensus on them. To me, that indicates that improvements can at most be cosmetic.

I have to acknowledge that the article is fairly technical and demanding of less educated readers. However, I tried my best to either link and/or explain difficult words in laypeople's terms, thus I believe that improvements in this respect will be practically impossible without reducing quality. HMallison (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can provide PDF of most sources cited for fact checking. email me! HMallison (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Media Review I fixed the description for the map, other than that, it's all good.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the page ranges used are quite large - is it possible to use smaller ones to aid in verification?
 * FN 3: translate author formatting. Also, page(s)?
 * FN 4: page(s)? In general, print-based sources need page numbers
 * Be consistent in how pages are notated
 * What is ATTEMPTO?
 * FN 23: formatting
 * FN 35: need specific page number(s)
 * Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for books, and if so where these are placed
 * FN 37: formatting
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Be consistent in how editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: As one of the major contributors, I am not an impartial judge; however, I will be around to help with reviewers' issues. J. Spencer (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * partial reply to Nikkimaria
 * * "Some of the page ranges used are quite large" - sources (not footnotes = FNs! Those are for "sissies") are given according to scientific standards: full citation, with full page range. The habit of pointing to a specific page of a book is nice and useful, because books tend to be very long (but come a new edition, even one with no text changes, and you're f-ed!). However, most sources are scientific publications, and thus it makes little sense to cite a specific page! These sources are highly structured, and thus it is easy to find the relevant passage WITH CONTEXT anyways.
 * Additionally, to add a reference to a specific page within the given range, which admittedly could be done, is a task taking a whole work week! Just so that people can do an out-of-context-"fact check"? With science papers you need to read the entire thing anyways to check if the paper is quoted correctly. PLEASE REPLY if you really think this necessary, or maybe list the specific claims you would like to see page-sources; if the total number is manageable I'll try to do so. For example, I can at least point to the relevant chapters within Moser (2003), which is quite lengthy - but only if the reader really gains from this. Moser (2003) is not OpenAccess, btw., so I doubt there is a big gain for anyone.
 * * missing pages for some sources are caused by articles being online-first, thus lacking them. Some have since appeared in print, so it is possible to add pages numbers (will do). Some do not officially have any (e.g., Palaeontologia Electronica papers). EDIT: FN 3, e.g., has still not appeared in print. Do you want me to add "onlien first" to ref text for these cases? /EDIT EDIT: equally, Yates et al. 2011 /EDIT
 * * missing pages for some old books etc. stem from the book being inconsistently numbered in different catalogs and editions. I'll TRY to fix.
 * * ATTEMPTO is a publisher (of Tübingen University). Last time I checked they were just ATTEMPTO, not ATTEMPTO Verlag or so.
 * * will fix formatting inconsistencies.
 * Thanks a lot for finding these issues! HMallison (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly done now; awaiting reply on specific page issue. HMallison (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At minimum you definitely should include more specific pages for direct quotes. I would prefer also to see them for FNs 4, 6, 35, and 36. (Also, while I didn't do a full re-check, I'm still seeing quite a few formatting inconsistencies here...). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point about direct quotes. I'll see about the mentioned sources, too. However, I still think that it is not sensible to quote individual pages for everything. And yeah, as I said formatting is mostly done, not completely done ;) HMallison (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never done direct pages for journals, other than to cite the page range of the articles. For books I generally have, or alternately cited the chapter or segment of text pertaining to the subject. I'll take a look at the formatting. Hmallison, I am happy to put the journals into cite format if you're ok with it as it automatically does all the bold/italics/spacing etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead! it's very helpful, and if I watch I may learn how to do it properly! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what the problem here is, don't you? Most people really write wikipedia articles by stitching quotes from sources they often do not fully understand. That's usually the best laypeople can do, and that's how I'd be forced to write outside my direct field of expertise (which is why I don't). If you write in this way it is very easy to just add the page number to a citation.
 * An expert, in contrast, has at least half the main sources reliably in his memory, thus is required to re-check them just to add a page number. Heck, I don't know any page numbers for my own papers - why would I? (in addition, some don't have them). That's a huge waste of time. For example, I would need to find 18 specific things I quoted Moser (2003) on in that paper, with each of them being very likely to be mentioned several times.
 * I guess, if you really insist on conforming to the letter of, I won't be able to do it. I happen to have a life. Sorry.
 * I'll source the nomenclature part. I'll find the page range referring to Plateosaurus in Jaekel (1911). Same for other works that have specific parts on the critter. But I won't rip Moser (2003) apart, nor any other work that deals exclusively with Plateosaurus. If that means no FA status for Plateosaurus, so be it (no hard feelings). HMallison (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'HELP - is there a way to do this: I want repeat instances citing the same source (e.g., Sander 1992) to point to ONE entry in the reflist (i.e., Sander (1992) is listed only once), but also want to refer each entry to a specific page within that document. It seems that this is not easily possible. Can we have the page number given, e.g., with the superscript number linking to the reference? If it can't be done, sourcing to individual pages would mean that we end up with Sander (1992) listed ten times in the reflist, which is idiotic. HMallison (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've done the sourcing a bit differently with White-bellied Sea Eagle - see there are page templates with SFN that then link to ref section and to book ref directly below. We can use that way (??) You like? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that would work - but it is SO "humanities and arts", and so un-"natural sciences" ;) I'll see if I can get this to work so that those refs without need for distinction between pages jump right to the reflist. HMallison (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, what do you think? is it OK if I add this for important topics? HMallison (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean SFN or similar? Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, it seems to me that it is not possible to have a SFN for those refs that need distinction wrt cited page, but have all other refs show up directly in the list of References. Does anybody know a solution? As a scientist used to "proper" reference lists (ideally alphabetically sorted) what I see at White-bellied Sea Eagle does not really look "pretty" to me. HMallison (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can this be done with ref groups? HMallison (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems possible, I'll give ti a shot. HMallison (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, Casliber, anyone else interested in proper citations: please check the examples I added for the Etymology section and how they show in Notes  and References. If this is OK, I'll add page numebrs for everything as I find time (I must caution that they want $13/day for internet during SVP, to next week will see me mostly offline). HMallison (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Valid points - I'm still happy with what I see to pass the article (3 is really minor below). You happy for me to format the refs? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cas, go ahead with refs. 3) will be addressed once I find a quite 30 minutes. The text needs a bit of clarification on "monospecific" with regards to the additional finds, too.
 * Regarding ref formatting: I guess that Nikkimaria sees inconsistencies where there are none. I use three different formats for three different things: journal articles, non-edited books, and chapters in edited books. If you assume that non-edited books and chapters in edited books need to be the same, then the refs are indeed inconsistent. However, the different formatting is intentional; I copied the style of a paleo journal. Anything else you find - fire away! HMallison (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you're just not seeing them ;-). Some quick examples: hyphen instead of endash for page range in FN 58; formatting of the larger work in FN 26 vs FN 57. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, Hmallison has not participated at FAC before, hence some of these bits are fiddly. I have tweaked the dash/hyphen things, but now need to sleep. WIll format refs in morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, thanks for giving examples! It makes it a lot easier for me. I'm a style editor for a journal, so well versed for finding formatting errors in word docs, but not here. I didn't mean to say that you ONLY see errors where there are none (sorry!), only that SOME things that may seem odd or wrong to you may stem from my (admittedly odd) choice for formatting scheme. And yes, the Special Papers in Paleontology are a problem (good catch!), because even the publisher initially had differing formatting in the PDFs, so that zotero and Endnote etc. extracted them differently. AARGH! HMallison (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * References all changed to use templates. HMallison (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had an unmentionably horrendous day and had almost zero time to help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries - this way I was forced to learn how to do it - and once I got the hang of it things worked out well and quickly. HMallison (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that would have been a real surprise, except for where I cite my own work ;) HMallison (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to misunderstand this comment, but even if you're citing your own work, you can't "plagiarize" there unless you own the copyright and do some OTRS thing to release it to Wikipedia-- I hope you're not saying you've copied your own words from elsewhere, unless you've released the copyright to Wikipedia? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  (pending discussion on 3 below but that is really minor) - I was an early contributor and did muse on buffing this myself, but someone alot better qualified came along. I have since copyedited it. Looking good overall. I'll jot any final queries for discussion below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Commonly, the animals lived for 12 to 20 years at least - not greatly thrilled about the sentence as it sounds odd to me - I think "The animals commonly lived for 12 to 20 years at least." is better, but there might be some other options.


 * 2)  Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusual quality - wondering whether there is any ambiguity and that " Three localities are of special importance, because they yielded specimens in large numbers and unusually good/high quality" is better (?)


 * 3) Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, Liliensternus and Halticosaurus - is it worth saying "Between the 1910s and 1930s, excavations in a clay pit in Saxony-Anhalt dug up between 39 and 50 skeletons that belonged to Plateosaurus, and two small theropod genera/theropods/predators Liliensternus and Halticosaurus" (bolded bit - take one's pick of descriptors...)


 * 4)  Plateosaurus material has also been found in Greenland - I think it balances if we give where in Greenland (as we have specific localities in all the preceding countries)


 * Replies to Casliber (I took the liberty of numbering your points for easier referral)
 * 1), 2): Agree, will wait for suggestions EDIT: altered, please check if good now./EDIT
 * 3) will check on amount of material and add that to sentence you suggested Sander 1992 has tables, is more up-to-date. Changed text and source. Halticosaurus is not listed by Sander; I trust him more than the Tübingen Proceedings paper. HMallison (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) done as well as I can; have only abstract of relevant paper. HMallison (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - with a few minor comments. I think I see a mixture of US and UK spellings (not many) such as "behaviour" perhaps a quick spell check is needed. Is there a special meaning to "subadults" that "juveniles" does not convey? I think this should be "or" as in "nor of catastrophic burial". And "under 10 years of age" should be "less than". Lastly do we really need to hyphenate "zigzag"? Thank you for an engaging and highly informative contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll spell-check as suggested, fix "or" and "under". No need for a hyphen, but it was suggested by my spellchecker. "subadult" and "juvenile" - I wish there were scientific terms to distinguish between "children" and "teenagers". I and many of my colleagues use "subadult" for the latter, and that is exactly what the P. finds represent: adults and teenagers (i.e., probably fertile or nearly fertile individuals). If you can think of a concise way to make this point in the text I'd be very happy to alter the text. HMallison (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "immature adults"? Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! But you just gave me an idea: "nearly adult" HMallison (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Spellchecking done, Word 2011 UK English. Terms not included there may be wrong in my personal Word dictionary, so please yell if you think something is wrong. HMallison (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * other changes made, I left "subadults" in, but added parentheses with "nearly adult individuals" for clarification. OK? HMallison (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course - thanks for your friendly (and entertaining) responses. Graham Colm (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support The illustrations are excellent and I feel the article mixes technical terms with brief explanations well. I've made a couple of edits you'll want to check over to make sure I didn't screw anything up. Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Notes H and I are identical, could they be combined?
 * 2)Just a thought, but I wonder if swapping the second and third paragraphs of the lead would help with flow. I think a physical description of Plateosaurus follows on first paragraph which explains the period the dinosaur lived in. The second and fourth seem to focus mainly on the study of the genus.
 * 3)Also in the lead, "taxonomy" is linked (and an explanation given in brackets) on the second occasion rather than first. There is a similar issue with the term "monophyletic" as it's explained in the taxonomy section, but not where it first occurs in the description section.
 * 4)"Average individuals had a mass of around 600 to 4,000 kilograms (1,300 to 8,800 lb)": The word "Average" doesn't strike me as necessary as you go on to give a range. If it was the median (what most people think of when they hear of averages) surely it would have a single value?
 * 5)It's not preventing me from supporting, but could the red dot on File:Plateosaurus cent europ localities2.png be made a bit brighter? I think it's a bit too dark at the moment and doesn't stand out from the black dots.
 * 6)"In contrast, von Huene interpreted the sediment as aeolian deposits, with the weakest animals, mostly subadults (nearly adult individuals), succumbing to the harsh conditions in the desert and sinking into the mud of ephemeral water holes": did he explain why juveniles were not found with the remains? The same question applies to Weishampel later in the same section.
 * 7)Maybe "obligate" could be explained in the article?
 * 8)Could something be added on the Plateosaurus' habitat?
 * (For easier reference I numbered your points, I hope you don't mind)
 * Many thanks, I am constantly surprised at how many things are left to hone to perfection (as if that could ever be reached)
 * 1) sorry, no idea how I could do this. I could, theoretically, just delete the first, and have the second refer to both sentences. But because of some bad experiences on German wikipedia, and because I dislike the "paragraph citing" in research articles (u don't want me as a reviewer, trust me!) I would rather stick to the present way of doing it. If someone can merge these refs while retaining a ref for each sentence, please do! Done!
 * 2) I'll think about it. Gut reaction is to say no, because paragraph four ties in with three, and two doesn't fit after four. I need to read this a few times in both versions and see.
 * 3) Will fix! (me idiot, should have done a search for first occurrence of linked stuff) Done!
 * 4) Typo! "Adult", not "average! DOH!!! Done!
 * 5) I'll ask the file creator, I am an idiot with these things. You're entirely correct!
 * 6) Huene (1928) says nothing about very young individuals. Sorry! Weishampel & Westphal (1986) have two theories: mud deluge transported babies elsewhere (we know there was no catastrophic death, thus nonsense), or babies lived elsewhere. Also unlikely. IIRC, Probable answer is in Sander (1992): only "correct" weight leads to sinking into mud. I'll check.
 * 7) yep. Will do. Done!
 * 8) Ooff! That is quite a task, I first have to check what the current literature says - if there is any. A plaeobotanist by training I never dug into that mess. I know a lot of stuff that was later found to be incorrect, but I do not know where to find current data. I'll see what my PDF collection has to offer, and what I can get via institutional access. But I do not have high hopes! The area was studied to death a century ago, and the current consensus seems to be that all things published as a resut are not really accurate. I know fro sure that the current excavators are Trossingen think a full-blown study of sedimentology and playnology to be required.
 * What I can add is some palaeogeography. That's less controversial.
 * As for the quality of the illustrations: I did my best, and FunkMonk went throught the hassle of uploading it all. So many thanks for the praise. Your edits, btw, all seem perfect HMallison (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured out how to do #1. J. Spencer (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a genius! HMallison (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Though the article looks great, there are a few questions I have, with the first two in the "Description" section and the rest I have designated:


 * 1) "The arms of Plateosaurus were very short, even compared to most other "prosauropods", but strongly built, with hands adapted to powerful grasping." Something about this sentence is a tad off, perhaps you could divide it into two sentences with the second one beginning with "Despite the length of the arms..." or something of that nature.
 * 2) It seems to me that there are some inconsistencies with tense, it says "The skull of Plateosaurus is small and narrow..." and then later says "The ribs were connected to the dorsal (trunk) vertebrae..."
 * 3) In the "Classification and type material" section, it says "Plateosaurus was the first "prosauropod" to be described,[1] and gives its name to the family Plateosauridae as type genus." Is there any reason the citation is in the middle of the sentence and there is no citation at the end?
 * 4) First sentence of "Valid species" section: "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and confusing." Confusing is a strange word to use here. It sounds a bit informal and could be an opinion, perhaps say "The taxonomic history of Plateosaurus is complex and there is debate in the scientific community concerning the topic" or something to that extent.
 * 5) "Invalid species" section: "Later, he collapsed several of these species..." What exactly do you mean by "collapsed"?
 * 6) In the second paragraph of the "Growth, metabolism, and life span" section there are a few facts that have no citations with them, such as the one about the varied growth rate probably being caused by environmental factors. I think that we need a citation especially when words such as "probably" are used, since that is a scientist's opinion
 * Overall, I was very impressed and I have learned so much about the wonderful Plateosaurus. Thanks for all your hard work! Basilisk4u (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
 * 1) I'll split that. Done!
 * 2) The example you give is correct: the skull IS, but the ribs WERE attached. The animals are dead, you know, and the ribs no longer attached at all. but I'll go through the text for inconsistencies ;)
 * 3) I'll check that out. Ref added.
 * 4) I seem to remember that this is used in a paper, will check and turn into direct quote w source or replace. Found exact quote, so no need to source to all of Moser. HMallison (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) will fix
 * 6) That section is all from one source, and the one case where I used paragraph sourcing. But you're correct: I used sentence-sourcing for all the rest, so need to be consistent.HMallison (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Comments—The article looks to be in pretty good shape with plenty of detail. Here's a few concerns that caught my eye: Sorry for only getting to this so late in the review cycle. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Unless I missed it, there doesn't appear to be any information on fossil dating. A time range is given in the lead, but is not cited.
 * 2) "...back, and a large, round orbit (eye socket),...": Why the extra 'and' with the comma?
 * 3) "...both positions determines the air exchange ... determined to be ... ": The double use of 'determine' in this sentence stands out. Can a synonym be used?
 * 4) "...were only recognized recently": this is a dated statement.
 * 5) Artistically, that size comparison illustration doesn't look quite right, especially when I compare it to the life restoration illustration and some of the skeletal mounts. In particular, the limbs aren't postured correctly and they seem to be in the wrong position. There are other, lesser concerns about the silhouette.
 * No worries, this will take a long time to get perfect (I have a real life, y'know?), so you're not late but early!
 * I numbered your points for easier reference, hope you don't mind.
 * 1) That's an issue.... In Trossingen, the Norian/Rhaetian border may be in the Knollenmergel. However, nothing published on that. I'll add something, and stick to the published wisdome, and use the stratigraphic table for Germany in its latest version. Done - range is shorter than before because of sticking to stratigraphic table. Uncertain about validity, but big paper that would clarify has been rotting in someone's drawer since 2003. This is the best I can do right now. HMallison (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) rephrased. Please tell if satisifed.
 * 3) "define" instead of "determine".
 * 4) "in 2010".
 * 5) I agree, this is not really great. I can cobble one up from one of my papers' figures.
 * Many thanks! HMallison (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

New paper on P. skull in AMNH Bulletin; skimmed it, will add it. Makes odd claim about P. erlenbergensis being valid; no major changes as big study by Moser 2003 ignored. Give me a day or two to add this. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to taxonomy section, with qualifying comment and source HMallison (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This was just published:. Not sure how much of it is relevant to this article. Ucucha (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the four lines before yours ;) It also has some relevance if I ever get around to add a very detailed description of the skull. Thanks for pointing it out, though - sometimes I miss these things! HMallison (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been holding back a bit because I was waiting for a paper to come out which now has appeared: the field notes of Trossingen excavator Seemann. PDF of paper includes EN translation, can be accessed for free here: I'll work anything important into the text then address what remains. I hope to find mention of plant remains or lack thereof at Trossingen, etc., which pertains to some open questions. HMallison (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I stopped reading about dinosaurs when I was about 8, so I have little knowledge of the subject matter. That said, I found the article to be scholarly, well-written, and interesting, and I think it will make an excellent addition to FA. All I can offer to help improve it are suggestions for minor prose and MoS tweaks. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "… as is the case in other basal sauropodomorphs." -> "as in other basal sauropodomorphs."
 * "… was adapted to rapid bipedal locomotion." -> "could run quickly on its two legs."
 * suggested links: Royal Ontario Museum, crown, histology, clade, phylogeny, basal, cladogram, plasticity
 * "…, which has allowed reconstructing the inhaled and exhaled… " -> "which has allowed researchers to reconstruct the inhaled and exhaled positions of the ribcage."
 * "determined to be ~20 l for a P. engelhardti" I think "about" or "approximately" should be used rather than a shorthand symbol in text
 * "Adult individuals had a mass" could this be shortened to just "Adults" (the previous sentence starts out the same way)
 * "The older species, P. gracilis" Older as in described before the other species, or older as in lived in an earlier geologic era?
 * unlink physician; Frick should be linked earlier than it is now
 * "revealed a total of 35 complete"
 * "In 1997, workers of an oil platform of the Snorre oil field located at the northern end of the North Sea were drilling through sandstone for oil exploration when in a drill core extracted from 2,256 meters below the seafloor they stumbled upon a fossil they believed to be plant material." this sentence sounds a bit cumbersome, maybe adding some commas for pauses will do the trick; "stumbled upon" is idiomatic; -> imperial convert for 2,256 meters; the other instances of this unit are spelled with British English
 * "P. gracilis, the older species" should avoid starting a new paragraph with an abbreviation
 * [33][34][6][19] -> citations should be in numerical order
 * what's a "type series"? Haven't heard of this phrase before.
 * I think it's excessive detail to include museum specimen numbers in the figure captions (this info is available to the curious by opening the image page anyway)
 * I'm thinking that citations should be given for two various statements given in figure captions:
 * "This is the most complete Plateosaurus skeleton from Frick."
 * "Anatomically, this mount created under the direction of Friedrich von Huene is one of the best in the world …"


 * [Z][49][57][58][AA][60] -> please consider bundling citations to avoid citation explosions like this
 * how about a link for Prieto-Márquez & Norell 2011 (or perhaps just link directly to the PDF?)
 * Cool, thanks :) Many good points!
 * FYI (will add this to text or find link), a type series is the material that is used to describe a new taxon if no holotype is picked. HMallison (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at bundling citations. I do not think that would be a good idea here, where there already are two lists: 1) notes, where pages are given for 2) References. HMallison (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * regarding "[33][34][6][19] -> citations should be in numerical order": they are in historical and alphabetical order. I'd prefer to keep that, because otherwise, if you cite on source or remove one source early in the text you may end up having to re-arrange them everywhere. Obviously, this is a consequence of citing the same source over and over. HMallison (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Current interpretation" runs afoul of WP:MOSDATE-- nowhere in that section are we given a date or time frame reference.  Source 47 tells us it might (??) be since 1913?  Similar in the lead:  "The latest research ..."  Can that be rephrased to something that gives us an indication of what "latest" refers to?  Please check the article throughout for similar.


 * In the lead: " ... that is still considered valid today ... " today is redundant to "still". Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are several nicknames and alternate names mentioned in the lead: should these be bolded as alternate names per WP:LEAD and should redirects from those names be set up? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm finding several things in the lead that I don't understand as a layperson. I don't know how we went from Engelhardt and von Meyer to Owen.  Another sample:  "It was nicknamed the Schwäbischer Lindwurm (Swabian dragon) because it was so common a fossil in south-western Germany."  It's not clear to me what that name has to do with it being common (I shouldn't have to read the article to find that out-- the lead should stand alone).  Is "so common a fossil" optimal wording?  Could it not be, "because the fossil was so common in ... "  "Some researchers proposed theories" about what?  I guess it's about the list of things in the next sentence ... but I shouldn't have to guess.  Some readers will read only the lead, it needs to stand alone and be digestible to idiots :)  See WP:LEAD.


 * Text is quite awkwardly sandwiched between images in "Posture and gait" and somewhat in "Discovery and history"; see Manual of Style/Images. Is it possible to relocate or juggle those images to avoid sandwiching text?


 * Spotcheck of sources still pending (Ucucha already listed this at WT:FAC). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for being so thorough; that's what the text needs right now. I'll address these things over the weekend (unless the kids get sick) HMallison (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck:
 * Mallison (2010) seems to be used correctly (I wonder who wrote that paper :-) ).
 * As far as I can see, Hurum et al. (2006) don't say that the Norwegian fossil was originally identified as a plant, or that it was at 2256 m below the sea floor; they do say that it was found at 2590 m below sea level.
 * Yeah, that one was from the old version of the article, and originally sourced to a new article, too, which went offline at some date and was removed (maybe even by me). The text was not adapted to that, sorry. HMallison (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on other sources, I made some minor changes, but overall I think we're good.
 * Ucucha, in your reference to Mallison, it is paraphrased adequately? I explained to MHallison that unless he owns and releases the copyright, still has to paraphrase if sourcing himself.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any close resemblance in wording. Ucucha (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I summarized; my papers are horribly long and rambling ;) HMallison (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the dinosaur's body is intact now, and we've located Germany, France and Switzerland. It's always a pleasure to see Yomangani work his magic! I still see text sandwiched between images, but won't hold up promotion over that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.