The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
based on an embryonic skeleton – but is it actually an
embryo? "Embryo", as far as I remember, adopts a special meaning in paleontology, and often these are actually fetuses. But the reader won't know this. I would avoid the word at this point, and introduce and explain later on.
I just see that the article
embryo covers this: In other multicellular organisms, the word "embryo" can be used more broadly to any early developmental or life cycle stage prior to birth or hatching. So I think it is fine.
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
than oviraptorids, which are two of the major oviraptorosaur families. — formulation not ideal as "which" seems to refer to "oviraptorids" only. Also, can we say "the two most diverse oviraptorosaur families" to be a bit more specific?
a large amount of fossilized dinosaur eggs from Cretaceous rocks and sediments from the Gaogou Formation in Henan Province, China, many of which were embbeded in sediments. – are you saying here that some were not embedded in sediments but in other rocks?
While they were kept out of China – really? Or "outside of China"?
While they were kept out of China, many of the blocks containing dinosaur eggs were prepared (cleaned) in other countries – You can remove "China" or "other countries", no need for both. When they are not in China, a reader can assume that they have to be in another country.
corresponding to the Heimaogou of the Xixia County – "corresponding" is disconnected from the previous sentence part, and what is "Heimaogou" that is needs a "the"?
Beibeilong was one of the largest oviraptorosaurs extrapolated from the large Macroelongatoolithus eggs associated with the holotype embryo, measuring as much as 40–45 cm (16–18 in) long – This is a common problem in the article: Sentence parts are not connected to each other in a correct way. When read literally, this sentence would mean that "only of those oviraptorosaurs that had large Macroelongatoolithus eggs, Beibeilong was the largest". This is because you forgot to say what was extrapolated (it's size). Furthermore, "measuring as much as 40–45 cm long" refers to Beibeilong and not to the embryo when this sentence structure is used. You would need a "which measured as much as …", where the "which" is referring to the embryo.
The article looks complete and well-researched, but a big remaining issue is the language, and criterion 1 "well written" is not yet met. Will continue soon. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
21:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The hands would have developed functional fingers – most fingers are "functional", can be be more specific?
many of which were directly embbeded in sediments. -- I still don't understand, can they be indirectly embedded in sediments? What does that mean? In situ?
in company of Mr. Zhang Fengchen—who participated in the initial discovery of the specimen -- Fengchen was already introduced, so no Mr. needed. Also, before it was stated that he discovered the eggs, now you say he only participated in the initial discovery?
I mean, is not literally stated as only, but I guess the wording is not benefitial. Removed —who participated in the initial discovery of the specimen—.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
05:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The nasal bones of Beibeilong were fused around the naris (nostril) openings -- fused with what, whit themselves? Also, not sure what "around the naris" would mean, with what can it fuse all around the naris?
Just to check: is Pu and colleagues (2017) the only study that included Beibeilong in an phylogenetic analysis? If there are others, they need to be mentioned in the Classification section.
Elements like the dentary probably fused together after hatching -- You mean, the left and right sides fused together? Should be mentioned for clarity.
"Small-bodied oviraptorosaurs (such as oviraptorids with small Elongatoolithus eggs) arranged their nests packed with eggs and a rather small nest center. In contrast, large-bodied oviraptorosaurs (like Beibeilong or Gigantoraptor with large Macroelongatoolithus eggs) built their nests in a ring-like fashion" -- is this accurate? All oviraptorosaur nests have their eggs arranged in rings as far as I know.
You present the idea that oviraptorosaurs did brood their eggs as fact, but this is not so clear and quite debated; see for example Yang et al. (2019)
[1].
Ok, the source is in Chinese, and only with an English abstract that does not seem to be accurately translated. I would suggest to remove anything that we do not really understand, instead of just copying their formulations. I suggest replacing "left by intermittent muddy waters" by "left by braided rivers". --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
"subfacies-flowing microfacies" -- also here, I am lost. Maybe it makes sense to reduce the detail on sedimentology, and just focus on explaining the most important bits more properly for a general audience?
"suggest that herbivorous dinosaurs fed mainly on C3 plants and C4 plants" -- I only know about C3 and C4 plants, what else could they have fed on that is excluded here?
After reading the source, it says they fed mainly on C3 plants followed by C4 plants. However, this statement is for the Xixia basin as a whole, not the Formation. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
13:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.