Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Trachodon mummy/archive1

TFA blurb review
The Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil of a dinosaur, the first found to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions; almost two-thirds of the skin is preserved. Discovered in 1908 in the United States near Lusk, Wyoming, it is ascribed to the species Edmontosaurus annectens, a hadrosaurid (duck-billed dinosaur). It was discovered lying on its back, its neck twisted backwards and its forelimbs outstretched. After dehydration and burial of the carcass, bacteria consolidated the surrounding sediments, resulting in its excellent preservation. Skin impressions found in between the fingers were once interpreted as evidence for an aquatic lifestyle. The mummy was found by fossil hunter Charles Hazelius Sternberg and his three sons in the Lance Formation. Although Sternberg was working under contract to the British Museum of Natural History, Henry Fairfield Osborn managed to secure the mummy for the American museum.

Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you very much for the blurb! Unfortunately I had to move the page to a more prudent lemma (the request mas made at FAC, but I was asked to wait with the name change until after promotion). I changed the blurb accordingly; do you think it is good this way or should we give the meaning of the abbreviation AMNH (for the museum) in the first or second sentence? That is what I now did for the lead of the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The name change to "Edmontosaurus" sounds like a good idea, and I like what you did. The only thing I'm recommending is that we remove AMNH 5060 and (AMNH) ... so I did that. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are two other Edmontosaurus mummies, so this one is not "The Edmontosaurus mummy". What about "The Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil of a dinosaur"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't know that. How about now? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks good! There were some slight issues (the skeleton did not got dehydrated, it was the carcass, and the bacteria only acted after burial). I removed the part on the completeness of the skeleton (not really important) but added the most far-reaching influence this specimen had in the history of dinosaur studies. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I change "have been" to "were once" or "used to be"? Otherwise, I don't quite understand the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it's 1064 characters now ... max is 1025. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad – how does it look now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)