Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanis/archive1

Titanis

 * Nominator(s): AFH (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Titanis walleri, an extinct genus of terror bird. I have been working on this article for several months and it got promoted to good article status today. This is a vital-class article, so I am nominating it for featured article status. I also have used alt text in addition to colorblind-friendly colors when making the article to make it more widely usable.

AFH (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

AFH (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

 * Hi, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good. Thank you! AFH (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Review by SilverTiger
*First off, there's duplicate links. Most of them are technical terms or names that probably do need the extra linking, but "tarsometatarsus" is linked twice within the lede, and "Isthmus of Panama" is linked twice within the Great American Interchange section, which is overkill.


 * I have implemented all of these edits, will get to the other suggestions now. Augustios Paleo 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to Postcrania and the rest of the article later today. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, time for part two:

Overall, this article is pretty good, if (necessarily) technical in places. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have implemented all of your suggestions. AFH (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As all my concerns have been taken care of, I am happy to Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Image review


 * I have found this origin for File:Pierce_Brodkorb.jpg, which lacks more information and states that the copyright usage varies by photo. Should it be replaced with an image such as File:Titanis holotype.png? AFH (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That image is appropriately licensed; do you have any more information on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, for now I will be removing it until its copyright status is known. AFH (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The three other images should be sent for WP:paleoart review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

 * "Although the fauna is mixed, it appears that only two components are present: late Hemphillian and Rancholabrean. No definitive Blancan or Irvingtonian taxa have been recognized." (Baskin, 1995)


 * I talk here about how Howard assigned Titanis fossils to Aiolornis.
 * After reading the paragraph a couple more times I think I follow: Woodward found avian fossils including a wing bone and a premaxilla found in association; of these fossils, only the wing bone was assigned to Aiolornis at that time. Later Howard assigned all these to Aiolornis.  Then in 2013 the premaxilla was proposed as Titanis.  If that's correct, I'd like to try to make it clearer.  How about "In 1961, while fossil collecting, G. Davidson Woodward acquired several avian fossils from sediments in the Pliocene-aged (3.7 million year old) strata of the Olla Formation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, including a wing bone found in association with the premaxilla (ABDSP/LACM 6747/V26697) of a giant bird.  The wing bone was referred to the teratorn Aiolornis at that time.  In 1972, ornithologist Hildegarde Howard referred all these fossils to Aiolornis. This was supported by later studies, but in a 2013 paper the premaxilla was assigned to Titanis, the author citing its phorusrhacid anatomy as well as age and location." Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The size is incorrect, will be fixing that. The anatomy of Titanis itself remained unchanged for the most part.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was putting in my edits and they were lost by a conflict resolution with your edits. I will be adding them again now. AFH (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most points struck; a handful of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestions implemented, thank you! AFH (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I see it now. The silhouette is fine now.  I'm going to strike the point, but I think you should consider rescaling the human silhouette to six feet (it's currently around 5' 2") or eliminating it.  These silhouettes are conventionally six feet.  It's not wrong as you have it, since the scale is there, but it does look odd.  Other than that there's just the one unstruck point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which point are you referring to? AFH (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The silhouette is 160 cm, I'll change this to 180 cm. I also changed the paleoenvironment section if that is what you are referring to. AFH (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Last point is now fixed. This is a layman's review, but it seems FA quality as far as I can tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What else is needed for the article to pass? Do I need another reviewer? AFH (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have two editors supporting the nomination; that's enough that you don't need to worry about the coordinators archiving this any time soon. FACs are never promoted without at least three editors supporting on the content, so you'll need at least one more editor to review and support.  You can post neutrally worded requests for reviews at project or user talk pages, if you know of editors or projects that might be interested.  Or just wait -- FACs can take one or two months, sometimes.  As Gog noted above, you'll also need a source review with a spotcheck.  Those can be requested here; I've just added a request for you.


 * You might also consider reviewing other FACs, if there's one that you find interesting. There's no requirement for a nominator to review, but unsurprisingly, reviewing other people's nominations builds goodwill and makes it more likely they'll consider reviewing your nomination.  It takes six or seven reviews to promote a FAC, on average, so the system does rely on most nominators also doing reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Earwigs Copyvio Detector
A search found a 15.3% similarity with the citation Morgan (2005), which is not significant. The similarities to other sources were around 1% and were mostly proper nouns. I haven't checked for close-paraphrasing. Graham Beards (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Is a rewrite of the section with Morgan (2005) necessary? AFH (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Graham Beards (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Support specifically on criterion 1a (the standard of the prose), but in my view the article is of FA standard subject to a satisfactory source review and spotcheck for close paraphrasing. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Funk
*At first glance, I see some WP:duplinks (not counting the cladogram), which can be highlighted with this script:
 * Having written the only other terror bird FAC, Kelenken, which I see some of this article has borrowed from, I think it's a good idea if I gave it a review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * fixed, though Im keeping linked duplicates that had first been linked in the prose.
 * I'm seeing duplinks under Postcrania still. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why does this article need to use space on a cladogram that doesn't even show the subject of the article? I think it could be cut and explained briefly in text what it implies.
 * Which cladogram are you referring to?
 * Seems you solved it, it was the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the images could be rearranged so that they don't clash with section titles. For example the American interchange image could be right aligned and put under the title, and the size comparison image could be moved up so the restoration could be moved right, though I see that creates a problem with the guideline that image subjects should face towards the text. I don't think uploading flipped images is a good idea, so I'll try to ask somewhere if this can be done with code.
 * Please let me know if this can be done with code. Thank you
 * They're dragging their feet, so not much that can be done yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of the duplicates outside of the prose. AFH (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

*"This led R. M. Chandler to suggest" State when. *"However, it was later pointed out that this wing joint is not unique and is present in seriemas, which do not have specialized grasping hands" State by who and when.
 * Done
 * Done
 * The restoration and skeletal seem to have not been reviewed at WP:paleoart (note I removed the wing-claws long ago). Interchange image has restoration silhouettes and could be reviewed too.
 * Put both images up for review
 * Link terms in image captions, like holotype, tarsometatarsus, Life reconstruction, etc.
 * Done
 * Link equids, Pliocene, and Pleistocene, avian, stratigraphic, Rancholabrean, University of Florida, fossil collecting, type specimen, sinkhole, strata, phylogenetics, sexual dimorphism, etc., at first mentions.
 * Done
 * "until they were recognized as unique" When?
 * Done
 * Link and explain phorusrhacid at first mention. Something like (or "terror bird", a group of large, predatory birds).
 * Done
 * "The Red-legged seriema, the closest living relative of phorusrhacids." How is one species of seriema closer to them than the other?
 * Done
 * I see no difference, there are two living seriemas, so it makes no sense to say only one of them is the closest relatives of the phorhusrhacids. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Brodkorb created a manuscript" Wrote would make more sense.
 * Done
 * "though Ray pushed Brodkorb to change his assessment" To what?
 * Done
 * "after Benjamin Waller" You already spelled out his name earlier, only need last name here.
 * Done
 * I wonder why Ray didn't just name the species himself, if he had to steer the direction of the manuscript anyway?
 * I am unsure why, it may be due to Brodkorb's more comprehensive knowledge of Aves
 * "dubbing the genus" Naming would be more formal and fitting for the context. It's not like it's a nickname.
 * Done
 * "but became a sedimentary layer of clay that was uncovered during construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by the federal government." When? In general, give dates for important events and publications.
 * Done
 * "n association with the premaxilla (ABDSP/LACM 6747/V26697) of a giant bird" Seems random that you give a specimen number for this, but not all the other specimens you've mentioned earlier. Either just give it for the holotype or give it for all you can.
 * Done
 * "to the teratorn Aiolornis" Always link clades and genera at first mention.
 * Done
 * "he wing bone was referred to the teratorn Aiolornis at that time. In 1972, ornithologist Hildegarde Howard referred all these fossils to Aiolornis." It wasn't referred anywhere the second time if it was already referred in 1961. You could say it was agreed/confirmed it belonged in that genus.
 * Done
 * "but in a 2013 paper" By who? Always give authorship for important studies.
 * Done
 * "Skeletal reconstruction of the Titanis holotype." You could point out what the only one bone shown is.
 * Done
 * "Distribution map of Titanis" That should rather be fossil localities, we don't know what its distribution was.
 * Done
 * The description seems to have a lot more images than what's used here, I think many more should be used in the articles. I can help if needed.
 * That would be very helpful, thank you
 * I've updated the existing image to show all views, and added another. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "recently received more analysis in the 21st century" Unnecessary to say "recently".
 * Done
 * "genera were dubbed without justification" Saying "named" would fit the context better.
 * Done
 * "and huge skulls" A bit informal, perhaps "prportionally large" or similar would fit better.
 * Done
 * The section "Postcrania" could be named "Postcranial skeleton" for clarity.
 * Done
 * "have been mentioned in scientific literature as being known" Not sure "as being known" is needed.
 * Done
 * "The culmen (arc)" I would specify "upper arc".
 * Done
 * "The pterygoid is giant" Rather informal.
 * Done
 * There is a good deal of anatomical terms under description that could be explained in parenthesis.
 * Done
 * I would convert anatomical terms for direction into more common terms.
 * Done
 * "Potential sexual dimorphism has been suggested twice" What does it give the reader that it has been suggested twice, if you don't mention by who? I'd just cut "twice".
 * Done
 * Nowhere in the description can I see what sets this genus apart from its relatives, other than being heavier. What are its diagnostic features?
 * Done
 * Citations like 34 and 39 look incompletely filled out.
 * Done
 * "The pes is large and had three toes" You mix tenses, should be consistent, look throughout for this in the description especially.
 * Done
 * "though several vertebrae have been collected from Florida" Why is it relevant under description that it was from Florida?
 * Done
 * "suggesting the digits could flex to some degree" But is this still supported, or just an outdated assumption along with the claws?
 * Done
 * "pointed out by Gould and Quitmyer (2005)" Since you include the dates in the sentence structure outside parenthesis elsewhere, should do so here.
 * Done
 * "Much of its habits are inferred based on related taxa like Kelenken and Andalgalornis" Is this really what the source says? Note that much of what I wrote in the Kelenken article is itself inferred from other taxa, so perhaps this is an overstatement.
 * No detailed studies on the habits of Titanis specifically have been published to my knowledge.
 * The second half of the Leg function section is strictly about Kelenken, is there nothing published about this genus in particular? It is ok to use info that can be applied to an entire group in multiple articles, but I don't think that's the case here, as it's so specific, and should possibly be removed.
 * Any parts specifically? I believe some of the information is relevant.
 * The entire second paragraph of Leg function is specifically about Kelenken. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed much of the paragraph


 * "In Inglis 1a specifically, longleaf pine flatwoods and pine-oak scrub are known to have occupied the area based on the fossils of snakes, birds, and lizards." How is it known which trees existed there based on animal fossils?
 * Done
 * "The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis have been found to preserve over a hundred species and many different mammals." The "to" is confusing, is it a mistake?
 * Done
 * "This includes extinct proboscideans, perissodactyls represented by grazing equids and browsing tapirs." I think there needs to be an "and" after proboscideans, since you don't mention a third group after perissodactyls.
 * Done
 * "The avifauna of the period has extensive preservation" Odd way to put it, maybe you mean "an extensive avifauna is preserved" or "there are abundant remains of avifauna"?
 * Done
 * "From circumstantial evidence (i.e., bone fractures), it has been suggested that the species did not become extinct until 15,000 years ago" Why do bone fractures suggest this? And by who was this proposed and when?
 * Removed & fixed
 * I think this is important to keep just so it can be refuted (I also remembered this issue, and wanted to check what the current interpretation is). What I was asking is just what was the rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The age issue was already addressed in the Discovery and age section, so I believe it is unnecessary to include. Also, I could not find any mention of circumstantial evidence mentioned, I believe another user edited the page and added it.


 * "with the dominance of phorusrhacids and sparassodonts as the dominant predators" No need for double dominance/dominant.
 * Done
 * " The fauna of North America was composed of contemporary groups like canids, felids, ursids, tapirids, antilocaprids, and equids populating the region alongside extinct families like the gomphotheres, amphicyonids, and mammutids" I think you need to say "still extant groups" instead of "contemporary", and say "now" in front of "extinct groups".
 * Done
 * "Phorusrhacids evolved independently in South America" Independently from what?I think this is the wrong way to use the word, it implies independent evolution.
 * Done
 * I'm still unsure what's meant here. Convergent with what? What does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The source states that "The predator guild, feeding on vertebrates, was occupied by metatherians (Sparassodonta; Fig. 1), birds (Phorusrhacidae, Cariamidae, Anseriformes, and Falconiformes), reptiles (Squamata), and frogs (Neobatrachia), the last being occasional predators of small vertebrates (Fernicola and Albino 2012)" These niche gaps were instead filled by mammals in North America.
 * "he extinction of T. walleri and other phorusrhacids" Why randomly use the full binomial here and in other places?
 * Done
 * Spell out full name of McFadden as you do with other writers.
 * Done
 * "the earliest date for the Isthmus’ formation" You haven't mentioned the isthmus before, state what it connected, link an article about the term, and I don't think isthmus should be capitalised.
 * Done
 * "including the South American terror birds" Probably best to use their scientific name, since you do that everywhere else in the article.
 * Done
 * " Human settlement in the Americas led to the extinction of most of the remaining native South American mammal families" Isn't this just one out of multiple theories? Since climate change has also been suggested, I don't think you can be so definite here.
 * Done
 * "assumed the same would be true for other large, big-headed phorusrhacids like Titanis." But Titanis isn't mentioned in the article. Should use more unspecific wording like in the Kelenken article it was taken from, which says " same would be true for other large, big-headed phorusrhacids."
 * Done
 * Done
 * "but comes from one of the largest phorusrhacid individuals known", "Titanis was one of the largest phorusrhacids, rivaling Kelenken and Phorusrhacos in size based on preserved material." this is only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. If true, it should be repeated and elaborated on under description, with citations.
 * Done
 * "The skull has been estimated to have been between 321 millimetres (12.6 in) and 542 millimetres (21.3 in) in length, one of the largest known from any bird." Likewise, only mentioned in the intro, needs to be mentioned and sourced under description, and explained how this length was reached.
 * Done
 * "The skull has been estimated to have been" Repetitive wording, just say "is estimated to have been".
 * Done
 * " is after the fossil hunter Benjamin Waller" Already presented in the intro, no need for occupation or firstname repeated.
 * Done
 * "Titanis was in the subfamily Phorusrhacinae" Is classified in.
 * Done
 * "The tarsometatarsus was long and slender, like that of its relative Kelenken, which suggests that it could run faster than had previously been assumed for large phorusrhacids, and would have been able to chase down small animals." But no source actually compares the two?
 * Done
 * "Titanis is unique among phorusrhacids in that it is the only one known from North America, crossing over during the Great American Interchange" Shouldn't this be in the last paragraph of the intro instead of the first, to reflect the article structure?
 * Done
 * "Titanis is unique among phorusrhacids in that it is the only one known from North America" This doesn't seem to be specifically stated outside the intro.
 * Done
 * Here's a bit mouthful,, but should be all for now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "This would make it one of the largest phorusrhacid and aves known" Probably clearer to just say "birds" instead of "aves" (which should be capitalised anyway).
 * I see some images have pixel size forcing, but this is discouraged, and should be removed. If you want to make an image larger, use the upright parameter (scaling by for example saying |upright=1.6). But in general, just let them stay at thumbnail size, because then they will adjust to individual screens.
 * Added a two points more and answered some points above (still seeing a few older points without answers). FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I believe this is everything. AFH (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I have two minor points, I saw you changed "largest" to "biggest", but "largest is less informal, and I wouldn't say seriemas are "close" relatives, just closest living relatives. And there are some of my replies to your answers above that are unaddressed still (you can find them by looking at my comments that are not followed by yours). FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - changes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

SlvrHwk
Jumping in here to provide some comments:
 * Lead
 * The "For" template at the top should read "For the Greek myth figure..."
 * Saying "The holotype (name-bearing) specimen was first unearthed..." is probably unnecessary for the lead. I would rephrase to "The first fossils were unearthed..." and use the "holotype (name-bearing)" phrasing in the "Discovery and age" section.
 * "United States" doesn't need to be included in the link to Florida.
 * The first mention of the species name "...and was named Titanis walleri by ornithologist..." should be bolded.
 * Is the full binomial etymology needed here? The generic name meaning is given in the very first sentence, and the full etymology is in the next section.
 * Why is Texas linked, but not California? Should be both or neither.
 * Saying "...large skull, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak" might be too detailed for the lead. Could be shortened to "large skull with a hooked beak", with more detail given in the body paragraphs.
 * cm→in (rather than mm→in) conversions for skull length would likely be easier for most people to grasp.
 * The end of the last paragraph is rather confusing:
 * "...known from the Pliocene deposits of Florida and southeastern Texas..." (the first paragraph says it is also known from California?)
 * "Titanis likely preyed on mammals...and other herbivores of Pliocene Florida." (what about Texas and California?) Could rephrase to just "preyed on mammals...and other Pliocene herbivores" or something similar.
 * The last sentence could be slightly reworded for clarity; "Titanis is unique..., having crossed over [from where] during the Great American Interchange."
 * Discovery and age
 * The holotype pedal phalanx seems to have a different specimen number (UF 4109) than the tarsometatarsus (UF 4108). This should be properly noted in the image caption and body text.
 * The sentence "This was the first discovery of phorusrhacids outside of South America" is out of place in its current location. It would fit much better at the end of the paragraph.
 * The page mentions "...bones of equids, proboscideans, and many other Floridan fossils...", but the following sentence says "Waller and Allen's fossils consisted of only a distal tarsometatarsus...and a pedal phalanx..." The second sentence is referring to only the avian/phorusrhacid remains, so this should be made more clear in that sentence (i.e. "W. & A.'s avian fossils...").
 * A semicolon or em dash would be more appropriate in this sentence: "Ray also noted their stratigraphic origin: they were found..."
 * "Brodkorb published his description..." can be linked to species description.
 * I would make the following adjustments to the end of the first paragraph for clarity: "...naming the new genus and species Titanis walleri. The generic name, Titanis, references the Greek Titans, due to the bird's large size, and the specific name, walleri, honors Waller, one of the collectors of the type specimen. As suggested by Ray, Brodkorb grouped Titanis with the subfamily Phorusrhacinae..."
 * "As for Inglis 1b, it was originally..." could be rephrased to "Inglis 1b was originally..."
 * Under "Texan and Californian discoveries", Texas is not linked, but California. Should be both or neither.
 * "...but in a 2013 paper by paleontologist Robert Chandler and colleagues the premaxilla was assigned to Titanis, the author citing its phorusrhacid anatomy..." can be rephrased for clarity and active voice: "...but a 2013 paper by paleontologist Robert Chandler and colleagues assigned the premaxilla to Titanis, the authors citing the bone's phorusrhacid features..."
 * Classification
 * It might be helpful to link the first mention of Phorusrhacidae in this section, as the clade is a primary focus.
 * "While they are the most taxon-rich group within Cariamiformes, the interrelationships between phorusrhacids are unclear..." can be rephrased for clarity: "While phorusrhacids are the most taxon-rich group within Cariamiformes, their interrelationships are unclear..."
 * "Filled" in "...living from the Eocene to Miocene and filled a similar niche..." should be changed to "filling" for accurate parallel structure.
 * "Red-legged" does need to be capitalized in the image caption.
 * I may be misunderstanding the text, but the second paragraph says "Phorusrhacids originated in South America...", but later "It is unclear where the group originated...". Could this be rewritten to be more clear?
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph could be reworded for clarity: "Though for many decades the internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae were uncertain and many taxa were named without justification, they have received more analysis in the 21st century."
 * "...ending up with..." could be replaced with the more formal "...resulting in...".
 * A cladogram following the 2011 phylogenetic analysis could be helpful, if not just to demonstrate a more "historical" view. This could be implemented using the column template (see Yuxisaurus for an example).
 * It would be helpful to include the "Phorusrhacinae" label on the existing cladogram, as illustrated on the Phorusrhacidae page for the same analysis, to show the clade's polyphyletic nature.
 * Description
 * "...enlarged skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak"—this is very wordy. Is there a more efficient way to say it?
 * "...overall more heavily built bodily structure" → "overall more heavily-built body."
 * "The size of Titanis has been estimated several times, older guesses placing it at..." → The size of Titanis has been estimated several times. Older guesses place it at..."
 * "This would make it one of the...Struthioniformes and Gastornithiformes → "This would make Titanis one of the largest phorusrhacids and birds known, with only relatives like Devincenzia and Kelenken as well as some struthioniforms and gastornithiforms being larger."
 * "bones" should be plural in "...quadratojugals (cheek bone)..."
 * Once again, skull length would be more easily understandable if given in cm, rather than mm.
 * "The premaxilla is incomplete..." should be "The premaxilla of Titanis is incomplete" for clarity, since a different taxon was just mentioned in the previous sentence.
 * "...a partial mandible is known but it is unfigured and undescribed." → "...undescribed in scientific literature" (for clarity).
 * Paleobiology
 * "Much of its habits..." → "Many of its habits..."
 * "In a 2006 news article, Chiappe stated that Kelenken..." Who is Chiappe? Introduce him in the body using phrasing like "Luis Chiappe, an Argentine paleontologist, stated that..."
 * Instead of reusing the phrasing "Chiappe stated..." in the next sentence, say something like "Chiappe further explained/remarked/etc...."
 * "...very long legs, and thereby had the same kind of meat-eater adaptations" → "...very long legs, and thereby similar carnivore adaptations."
 * Remove duplicate word in "...killed and consumed more more safely..."
 * "et al." has a period after "al."
 * "A 2012 follow-up study by Claudia Tambussi and colleagues...", since she has not been mentioned earlier.
 * "...neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis was adapted..." → "...neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis were adapted..."
 * "...downwards strike, and the researchers assumed..." → "...downwards strike. The researchers assumed..."
 * Paleoenvironment
 * "During the Blancan..." → "During the Blancan stage..." for clarity.
 * Add link "endemic".
 * "The Blancan age strata of Florida from sites Titanis preserve..." → "The Blancan age strata of Florida from Titanis sites preserve..."
 * Unlike bird-of-paradise, bird of prey is generally not hyphenated.
 * "Teratorn" is linked in a much earlier section, so an additional link here would be helpful.
 * "...gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as apex predator" → "...gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator."
 * "...took place over a long period and most species..." → "...took place over a long period of time and most species..."
 * Replace period with a comma in "...to the rest of the Americas. and a reverse migration..."
 * "MacFadden" is misspelled once as "McFadden" in the text and accompanying citation.
 * Once again, there is a period after "al." in "et al."
 * I believe "postulated" is a better word choice than "stipulated", though the two have similar meanings.
 * The second instance of "Isthmus' " is not capitalized, but it probably should be ("The period following the isthmus' foundation...").
 * Extinction
 * The abbreviation "BP" should be clarified, at least with a link to the relevant page.
 * Other
 * Per MOS:CAPFRAG, image captions that are not full sentences should not end in a period. I believe this applies to four instances on the page.
 * Since the page already has the "Phorusrhacinae" category, it does not also need "Phorusrhacidae". And maybe not "Extinct flightless birds", since "Phorusrhacidae" is in that category (though I'm less certain about this one).
 * Hopefully this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggestions implemented. Thank you! AFH (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support—Adjustments made as suggested. Nice job! -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is enough supporters and the article is ready for promotion. AFH (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It still needs a source review, a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, sorry this is my first FA review so I'm not sure what happens. AFH (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild@SlvrHwk@FunkMonk Are any of y’all available for the spot check & paraphrasing reviews? AFH (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Sources are reliable.

Footnote numbers refer to this version. Will do spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The links for FNs 10, 15, 22 do not work.
 * FNs 22, 38, 46, 47 & 58 are incomplete citations.
 * You're inconsistent about giving publisher locations for book citations: FN 8 does not give a location, but FNs 33 & 57 do give one. Either way is fine; it just has to be consistent.
 * I see you've addressed this, but can I suggest you add US state names after towns that are not well known, such as Lubbock, New Haven, and Hoboken? And it looks like you meant to link Lubbock but only used one set of brackets. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For FN 42 you give NPR.org as the website parameter, but the website is branded as NPR -- npr.org is the domain.

Spotchecks: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FN 1 cites "Brodkorb authored a manuscript assigning it to the Struthioniformes, though Ray pushed Brodkorb to classify the fossils as phorusrhacid." I don't see mention of the Struthioniformes in the source.
 * FNs 2 & 5 cite "As for Port Charlotte, a single fossil, a partial pedal phalanx from the fourth digit, was donated to the UF in 1990." Verified.
 * FN 21 cites "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor." Mostly verified, but I couldn't spot the support for "derived from a seriema-like ancestor".  Can you point me at the right page in the source?
 * FN 40 cites "They also suggested future studies could examine whether they could have used their beaks and claws against well-armored mammals such as armadillos and glyptodonts." Verified.
 * FN 39 cites "By manually manipulating the vertebrae, they concluded that the neck musculature and skeleton of Andalgalornis were adapted to carrying a large head and for helping it rise from a maximum extension after a downwards strike." The sopurce says "maximum ventroflexion".  I think you're using "extension" here in the usual English sense, but unfortunately it also has a technical meaning for neck movement which is the opposite of flexion.  I wouldn't count this as a problem with the spotcheck, but I think you need to change this.  I would suggest either changing the wording so you can use the verb extend in some way ("raising the head after the neck had been fully extended" or something like that) or else just use "ventroflexion"; it's a technical term and you can't be blamed for re-using it.


 * When I say "Struthioniformes", I am referencing this line: the bird is more like the large flightless rhea of southern South America than any other flightless bird known to man. This would make it a member of Struthioniformes. "Derived from a seriema-like ancestor" comes from "a trend towards a more rigid skull (Degrange et al., 2010) from a presumed seriema-like morphology, was influenced by the adaptation to a very specific niche among predatory birds."
 * Rest of suggestions implemented AFH (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding Struthioniformes, our own article says the rheas are in Rheiformes. I think the later mention, "describing the bird as a giant rhea" is closer to what you want (the earlier cite is just him talking to the newspaper, before writing the ms) but I'm not sure whether that's enough to say he assigned it to Rheiformes in the ms. , sorry to bug you again, but I know you're expert in this area.  Would you say the citation is sufficient to say that Brodkorb assigned it to Rheiformes in his ms? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say that is over interpreting the source. "more like the large flightless rhea of southern South America than any other flightless bird known to man" is definitely not a specific classification, it is a very general statement, and should probably be made closer to the source. If I say "this animal was more like a dog than a cat", I'm not specifically classifying it as a canid. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll change this to "a relative of the rhea" or something along those lines. Thank you. AFH (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But does he really say it's related? He just says it's similar, but that doesn't necessarily mean related. For all we know, he could have meant convergent, so we shouldn't really interpret. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ray (2005) states "By Monday at the latest Brodkorb had also prepared a formal manuscript ready for submission, describing the bird as a giant rhea." AFH (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, you'd have to add that citation after the sentence to support it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is already there AFH (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is now OK. Since there was one spotcheck that needed attention, I'm checking a couple more below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

More spotchecks. Stopping there to let you respond to these, in case I've misunderstood something in the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FN 2 cites "The Santa Fe River specimens come from two localities within the river, 1a and 1b. The former locality is more productive, producing elements of Titanis including vertebrae, limb bones, and even parts of the skull." Verified.
 * FN 22 cites "A lineage of related predatory birds, the bathornithids, occupied North America prior to the arrival of phorusrhacids, living from the Eocene to Miocene and filling a similar niche to phorusrhacids." The source says their way of life was similar to the cariamas (seriemas); can this really be said to be the same niche as the phorusrhacids? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FNs 3 & 25 cite "They all preserve an elongated, thin tarsometatarsus that was around half the length of the tibiotarsus." I think this is derived from the individual descriptions which give the relative length of the two bones.  The description of Mesembriornithae says "around 80 to 85% of that of the tibiotarsus".  That's a good deal more than half.  In addition, unless I'm misreading the source, which is possible, not all the phorusrhacids have sufficient fossil preservation for this ratio to be measured in every case, so we shouldn't be saying "They all preserve".


 * “They” refers to Phorusrhacines. “ Titanis and other phorusrhacines were heavily built. They…” AFH (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't follow -- how does this address the questions I raised above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All phorusrhacines have preserved tarsometatarses and bear this ratio. I’m talking about that subfamily specifically. If I shouldn’t use “they” should I just say “All phorusrhacines”? AFH (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry I've been slow getting back to you. You say all phorusracines have this ratio, but as far as I can see looking through Alvarenga & Höfling it seems several genuses do not have this ratio measured -- Brontornis, for example, or Physornis.  The other two points I raised above also need to be addressed -- you say "around half the length" but 85% isn't close to half; and there's also the question about comparing their ecological niche to that of the seriemas -- cursorial habits don't necessarily imply that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Physornis and Brontornis are not part of phorusrhacinae. AFH (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do I say that their ecology was similar to seriemas’? Also, the tibiotarsus length sentence has been fixed, AFH (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I had missed that we're only talking about phorusrhacinae; sorry about that -- I read it as phorusrhacidae. The relevant quote from Alvarenga & Höfling is presumably then "The tarsometatarsus (Figs. 2E and 2F), relatively long and slender, is always longer than 60% of the length of the tibiotarsus" -- the 85% figure I quoted you doesn't refer to the phorusracinae. I think your original phrasing of "around half" is not quite precise enough. I've changed this in the article to match the source and have struck this point above. I see you've fixed the other point so I've struck that too. Will check a couple more sources tomorrow and I hope to pass this review then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Third spotchecks. -- this is the third pass for spotchecks. Each time I've found something that needs addressing, which means I don't feel comfortable supporting, but the issues are not so egregious I feel I have to oppose. I also don't want to continue to check and find minor issues. I would like another reviewer to do some spotchecks -- perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FN 36 cites "Degrange et al. also postulated that it used a series of well-targeted repetitive strikes with the beak in an "attack-and-retreat" strategy. Struggling prey could also have been restrained with the feet, despite the lack of sharp talons." The source has "... it most likely applied multiple well-targeted strikes in a repetitive attack-and-retreat strategy. Restraining struggling prey with their feet also was potentially an option, despite the absence of sharp talons."  This is insufficiently paraphrased.
 * FN 52 cites "Phorusrhacids evolved in South America to fill gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator." Verified.
 * FNs 43 & 44 cite "During the Pliocene-Miocene climatic transition, the climate was cooler but temperatures did not reach those of the Pleistocene, creating a warm period." Verified.
 * FNs 9 & 13 cite "Large rodents are represented by capybaras and porcupines." Verified.
 * Thanks for your efforts, Mike., how would you feel about taking up Mike's suggestion for some further spot-checking? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Haven't done a real spotcheck before, but here's an attempt. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * FN 22 " and filling a similar niche to cariamids" I'm not seeing this exp0lkicitly stated anywhere. Also, is't it better to use a more recent review of the group than one from 1968, which must surely be outdated in ways? And if you use it, best to link directly to the AMHN PDF site:
 * FN 52 "Phorusrhacids evolved in South America to fill gaps in niches otherwise filled by placentals in other continents, such as that of apex predator." I'm not seeing this explicitly stated anywhere in the source.
 * FN 24 While the citation supports the latter part of the sentence it is used for, the binomial in the title needs to be in italics, check all citations for same issue.
 * FN 37 While it supports the parts it cites about quills, I wonder if a source from 1899 is appropriate outside the more historical sections when used only to cite current thinking? Also, what does the first usage of the citation support? I assume it is this "Sides of the fossil are flat bearing a large dorsal crest, as in other thin-skulled phorusrhacids like Phorusrhacos. The culmen (upper arc) of the exposed premaxilla is identical to that in Patagornis marshi, an Argentine phorusrhacid." But how can a source from 1899 compare with a taxon named in 1963, without it here being WP:original synthesis?
 * FN 17 While it seems to support the statement, it is a bit of an odd citation. Looking at the bottom of the page, it says "Published in: Borrego Sun Vol. 62 No.8 April 11, 2013 By Susan Vescera". This would indicate the text was copied from a newspaper article, which should probably be credited somehow (nice if it could be found), if the citation can't just be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if more should be checked, but five seems fine for now? A more general comment on something I missed first time arund, I think the caption of the American Interchange image should state which colours represent taxa from what area, and that Titanis is included in it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed AFH (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi FunkMonk, is this one ready for a decision? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe so, looks fine to me, can't talk for Mike. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Support from Jens
Lead
 * The first fossils were unearthed by amateur archaeologist Benjamin Waller from the Santa Fe River in Florida and was named Titanis walleri – "were named"?
 * an incomplete right tarsometatarsus shin bone – I don't understand this, what is incomplete? A "tarsometatarsus shin bone"? Comma missing here?
 * Titanis remains poorly known. Titanis was – I suggest "It was" to avoid repetition of Titanis all the time.
 * and a large skull with a hooked beak . – space too much?
 * The material is fragmentary, consisting of only an incomplete right tarsometatarsus shin bone and phalanx toe bone – This would mean that nothing more is known, but apparently it only refers to the type specimen. That should become clearer I think.
 * A 2005 estimate placed Titanis at 2 to 2.5 meters (6.6 to 8.2 ft) in height and weighing 200 kilograms (440 lb). – sounds a bit awkward to me; maybe "200 kilograms in weight"?
 * Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America – this lacks context; the reader won't know why South America, since so far only the US was mentioned.
 * Titanis is known from the Pliocene deposits of Florida, southern California, and southeastern Texas, regions with large open savannas – I assume you didn't want to describe today's landscape in those states? Need to switch to past tense I think.
 * I know I'm a bit late for this one, I will try to get to the rest asap. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggestions implemented. AFH (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but: "Shinbone" is the tibia (or maybe the tibiotarsus in birds), not the tarsometatarsus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * fixed, changed to "lower leg bone" AFH (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You fixed one instance; it is repeated in the main text, too. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? AFH (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You fixed the second intance now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Discovery and age --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As suggested by Ray, Brodkorb grouped Titanis with the subfamily Phorusrhacinae within Phorusrhacidae, along with Phorusrhacos and Devincenzia, as suggested by Ray – only need one "as suggested by Ray"
 * Fixed
 * honors Waller, one of the collectors of the type specimen. – This contradicts the information provided in the lead, that mentiones Waller as sole collector.
 * Fixed
 * sparking a wave of large-scale excavation – "excavations"
 * The localities are confusing and could be better introduced. The Santa Fe River specimens come from two localities within the river, 1a and 1b. – Does this refer to Inglis 1a and 1b? What is Inglis to start with? Why is 1b not listed in the first sentence of the paragraph, while the other sites are?
 * This refers to the Santa Fe River localities which are called 1a and 1b. Not Inglis.
 * The description followed Brodkorb's erroneous Late Pleistocene age assessment. – Comes a bit out of the blue as it was not explicitly mentioend earlier that Brodkorb mad an erroneous age assessment.
 * Rephrased
 * link "rare earth element"?
 * Done
 * Later analyses of rare earth elements within the fossil demonstrated that the Texan Titanis derived from Pliocene rocks of the Hemphillian stage, a period preceding the formation of the Isthmus of Panama.[15] – "Later analysis" but you cite the same 1995 source? What is the later analysis here?
 * Fixed, was MacFadden et Al (2006) source
 * which are around 2.2–1.8 million years old from the Blancan – could be worded a bit better. Maybe "… years old, and therefore from the Blancan age".
 * Reworded
 * Implemented. AFH (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All implemented* AFH (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems you did not address all of them though? It is quite difficult for me to check what you fixed and what not. Maybe you could add a short comment to each point, explaining briefly what you did (or not) for the more complicated ones, that would really make it easier? So, you did not made any changes to clarify the localities as far as I can see? What about the Waller issue I pointed out? If you disagree with my suggestions or if I miss something, just let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Though for many decades the internal phylogenetics of Phorusrhacidae were uncertain and many taxa were named without justification – "without justification" seems to be a steep claim. What does the source say precisely (I had a look at the sources but can't find it).
 * Done, used phrase based on the common pattern of researchers like Ameghino & Moreno naming species without detailed analysis or reasoning.
 * They had an elongated skulls – "an" too much?
 * Done, not needed
 * Titanis itself coexisted with a variety of placental mammalian predators and contended with them – do the sources cover the claim that all of these genera "contended" with Titanis? I can't find it supported for Arctodus, at least. Co-existence does not necessarily imply competition (because there could have been niche-partitioning), that's why I am asking.
 * Done, was based on unpublished information I know of.
 * However, it differs from these in having a shorter, thicker neck – Which is your source here? You indicated source 3, but this can't be since it only describes the foot.
 * Done, was misinterpretation.


 * Okay, this should be all of the suggestions. What else is needed to pass? AFH (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good, but I still cannot make sense of the localities, even after reading it multiple times. You write Titanis has been found in three more sites within Florida since the discovery of the holotype but then apparently talk about other, additional sites? So there are actually more than "three more sites"? That does not make sense. I will try to get to the rest of the article shortly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Changes, hoped thsi helped. AFH (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit better but still unclear. Inglis 1b comes out of the blue and was not listed beforehand. Inglis 1a and Citrus County are mentioned at the beginning but apparently never mentioned again. Maybe you could improve the structure of the text somehow, presenting the information point by point instead of starting with two separate lists of sites (river sites and other sites)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed, had the locale name wrong. Should I remove “ Titanis has been found in three sites in Florida beyond the Sante Fe River since the discovery of the holotype: Inglis 1b, Citrus County; Port Charlotte, Charlotte County; and a shell pit in Sarasota County.” Entirely? AFH (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but I would simply include the Santa Fee river localities in this list. Why keeping them separate? I still do not understand that. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be better now. Thank you! AFH (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any more steps left till promotion? @Jens Lallensack @FunkMonk @Mike Christie AFH (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's up to the coordinators, and reviewers who haven't yet supported or opposed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am travelling but will try to get my review done during the next days. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jens. Sorry to be harassing you, but it's been a week. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay once more. Here are my final comments:
 * The "paleobiology" section seems to have been copy&pasted from the Kelenken article, and presents the research that has been carried out on other, better known taxa. Not that you should necessarily change something here, but applying summary stile might be worth considering to reduce redundancy a bit. One think should be changed in any case though: as was also the case for other large phorusrhacids such as Kelenken – should it be "such as Titanis" for this article?
 * There are abundant remains of avifauna, with thousands of fossils known, including birds of prey, teratorns, and turkeys. – The teratorns would be the most relevant to this article, maybe they deserve a bit of elaboration.
 * The Great American Interchange took place over a long period of time – "over a long period of time" is very vague and can mean anything. Can we be more specific?
 * A hypothesis made by MacFadden et al. (2006) – write "in a 2006 article" or similar to be style consistent.
 * Titanis is not the only large animal to have done this – need a "possibly" here since this is not certain.
 * saw the extinction or extirpation of many groups – what is the difference between extinction and extirpation here?
 * though this would not finish until the Late Pleistocene. – formulation is a bit strange. And does this mean that no groups went extinct from the Late Pleistocene onwards?
 * was originally theorized – "hypothesized" is the word.
 * that radiated in the same ancient terrestrial ecosystems – what do you mean with "radiated"?
 * Brodkorb's original mistaken aging of Titanis as being from the latest Pleistocene, an error followed by later studies, postulated that it – I think this is poor wording, as only a human can postulate something, not an "mistaken aging".
 * demonstrating that the genus was endemic to the Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene – is "endemic" really the correct term here?
 * late Pleistocene, – "late" or "Late"?
 * making the extinction of Titanis and Phorusrhacidae as a whole a mystery. – on what information in the source is this based on? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All suggestions implemented. AFH (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems, again, that you implemented some, but not all, of my comments. Could you re-check, and, where applicable, leave a reply explaining why you choose not to implement it? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For some reason not all of my changes are going through, but I’ll see what I can do. AFH (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented all suggestions, should be good now. AFH (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks ok now, thanks. Supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)