Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proceratosaurus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proceratosaurus

[edit]

Proceratosaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 2 June 2025, 02:59 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC), IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC); A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC), Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the oldest known tyrannosauroid, though dramatically different from its later, more famous relatives like Tyrannosaurus in being quite small and with a crest beginning at the snout. While first named over a century ago, little was published about it until the last few decades, and we have summarised all of it here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joining as co-nominator as agreed, focusing on revisions for things such as references and formattings. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I plan to review this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Creisler, B. (July 7, 2003). "Dinosauria translation and pronunciation guide P". Archived from the original on August 18, 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2025." - needs publisher in the citation
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive" - is it possible to avoid the duplication of the "as well as the" construction in a single sentence?
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Von Huene considered the crest, as well as the shape of the maxilla (the main tooth bearing upper jaw bone) and squamosal (a bone towards the back of the skull) as well as the shape of the external nares (bony nostril openings) and the infratemporal fenestra (the skull opening behind the orbit/eye socket) as distinctive,[7][8] considering the crest, which he thought to represent the base of a nasal horn, as a feature supporting its relationship with Ceratosaurus.[9]" - "considered the crest" and "considering the cest" in the same sentence? The whole sentence seems very convoluted.
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 m (9.8 ft) in length." - I would recommend rounding this the conversion to feet, given that the meter conversion is rounded here in the lead?
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Dilong in the first paragraph of the description section seems to be wrong - do you want Dilong paradoxus?
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well preserved fossils of the related tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong indicate that they were covered in relatively simple feathers in life, similar to the down feathers of modern birds" - this feels tacked on. There's obviously not going to be fossil evidence support to confirm/deny feathers for Proceratosaurus given that only a partial skull is available for this dinor. But is there actually direct speculation as to feather presence on Proceratosaurus? Are the two tyrannosauroids listed particularly close relations? If there's no direct discussion in the sources regarding feathers here, I don't know that this is really appropriate to include. Are there other related tynrannosauroids that lack feathers?
Hone explicitly states in the source: Feathers are rarely preserved as the conditions for their preservation have to be near perfect, and we have to be lucky enough to find fossils of feathered specimens. Thus even though only two tyrannosaurs are directly known to have had feathers, it is reasonable to infer that all of them did. I've modified the sentence to be more explicit about this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of tyrannosauroids such as Proceratosaurus in the Bathonian" - would recommend linking Bathonian here as it is the first use
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is in good shape overall. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm Talk 15:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (support)

[edit]
  • discovered some time prior I assume we know when, so be more specific: "discovered X years earlier".
I looked into this, and I genuinely could not find out when the skull was discovered. The original 1910 description does not say, only "At last, however,' Mr. F. Lewis Bradley, F.G.S., has been able to submit to the Society the greater part of a skull obtained some time ago from the Great Oolite in an excavation for a reservoir at Minehinhampton (Gloucestershire)" [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much faith to put in it (possibly none at all), but https://australian.museum/learn/dinosaurs/fact-sheets/proceratosaurus-bradleyi/ claims Bradley "discovered the first specimen in the early 1900s". RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That same page also claims the CT scan was done in 2010. RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arthur Smith Woodward book chapter confirms that the preparation and CT scanning occurred in 2010, but there's no confirmation about the date of the excavation of Proceratosaurus. Given the distance from the source, the "early 1900s" is probably just a reasonable speculation on the part of the author of the Australian Museum article, and I don't place any weight on it. Getting a proper answer on this would probably require deep archival digging that would probably go into WP:OR territory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minchinhampton, a town in the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire, South West England.[1] Just saying "Minchinhampton, in South West England" is enough. Knowing the full political structure of the UK doesn't help the reader understand the subject.
Truncated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • made the skull the holotype specimen of a new species I know just a little about taxonomy; I'm familiar with type specimen but not "holotype specimen", so that needs a bit of explanation.
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm sure to an expert, it's obvious what this means, but I'm still finding it a bit puzzling. It's also not entirely clear what it means to "move" a species. Reading the introduction to Rauhut et al, I understand it completely, so perhaps hew a bit closer to how they describe the situation and include some more of the details (obviously within the constraints of WP:CLOP? RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I've fixed this without getting too much into technical jargon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • maxilla and squamosal bones explain what these are. I assume maxilla has something to do with the jaw, but I have no clue what squamosal is.
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • infratemporal fenestra likewise.
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, later research showed "However, Rauhut et al later showed ..."
I think some researchers had disputed it before this, but fixed and moved to the bottom of the section so the Rahut study could be properly introduced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The holotype skull was since CT scanned Be more specific: "In <year>, the holotype skull was CT scanned ..."
This isn't specified in the source, but it was CT scanned as part of the project to redescribe the specimen, so I've mentioned that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only known skull of Proceratosaurus is 26.9 cm (10.6 in) long as preserved I think you're missing the word "is"?
To my native English speaking self, this seems like okay grammar to me without the "is" (I'm not sure where the "is" is supposed to be inserted, presumably in "as preserved"?) but I'll let others chime in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"as preserved" looks a lot more common than "as is preserved" looking at ngram data [2] Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • its longest axis is not horizontal but inclined upwards at an angle of approximately 30 degrees looking at the various illustrations (ex File:ProceratosaurusBradleyiSize.png), I'm not seeing this.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's an internal feature of the skull that wouldn't really be visible in life or silhouette. It's in comparison to Guanlong, where the difference in the orientation of the nasal fenestra (the big black opening at the front of the skull is quite apparent. [3] Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add some of that explanation to the article? RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "longest axis" to "maximum length". Hope this is more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is a case of you knowing this stuff inside and out so it's all obvious, but I'm still struggling. Perhaps you could prepare versions of File:Proceratosaurus bradleyi Skull Reconstruction (alt).png and File:GuanlongWucaiiSkulls.png which have all of these features labeled, similar to File:Massospondylus Skull Steveoc 86.png? RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a version of the Proceratosaurus image with all the skull parts labelled, as well as provided the Guanlong restoration (which is unmodified) in a double image for comparison. I think the reader will be able to infer what parts of the skull of Guanlong are which from the labels on the Proceratosaurus image. The Proceratosaurus image was reuploaded over the old one, so you may need to refresh your cache or use incognito to see it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • though one opinion published in 2000 Hmm, this is Rauhut again. You seem to be shy about giving him credit :-)
This isn't referring to Rahut 2010, this referencing Rahut 2010 quoting the opinion of another study "Madsen JH, Welles SP 2000. Ceratosaurus(Dinosauria, Theropoda). A revised osteology. Miscellaneous Publication, Utah Geological Survey 00-2: 1–80.". Would it be better to directly cite this study? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think citing the underlying source would make more sense. RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added direct supplementary citations to that section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the term "basal" in a few places (basal theropod, basal coelurosaur, basal thyreophorans). You should explain what that means.
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • causing the theropods teeth to slice, theropods -> theropod's
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about "bite force" vs "biteforce".
Fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed properly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact layer of stratum in which Proceratosaurus was discovered isn't "layer" the same as "stratum"?
Changed to "stratigraphic layer". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me on a first read-through. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith are all your issues dealt with or do you have any additional comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for leaving you wondering. I'm going to put this on the back burner for now but I'll come back at some point and take another look. If this slips down into "Older nominations" and I haven't come back by then, please ping me. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call this a support from me at least as far as being well written and approachable to a non-expert. I dont know enough about paleontology to express an opinion on whether it is comprehensive or well-researched, but I assmume we will get some SMEs to chime in on that. RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Proceratosaurus/archive1&oldid=1292423782"