This is the first FAC about a
megalosaurid, one of the few major groups of carnivorous dinosaurs that have not yet been represented at FAC. This particular animal was long thought to be the same as Megalosaurus itself (the first named dinosaur, and historically very important), though was much later recognised as distinct, and that's the gist of the story here. The entire literature has been summarised, and there were some nice free images available.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Megalosaurus display.JPG isn't the display copyrighted?
The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under
de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Later researchers doubted whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus - I'd write either, "Later researchers questioned/pondered/deliberated/queried whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus" or "Later researchers doubted the species belonged in Megalosaurus" (i.e. doubting is not questioning but naysaying)
If you can, avoid having both paras of lead start with "Duriavenator..."
Tried with "Estimated to have been 5–7 m (16–23 ft) long and weighed 1 t (2,200 lb), Duriavenator has been described as a medium-sized theropod."
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)reply
"Cast of the holotype dentary, showing the long teeth at the front, YM (left) and an isolated tooth, NHM (right)" - this caption is a bit confusing. Does this indication some sort of specimen number? It's not clear what YM and NHM mean here
It's just abbreviations of museum names mentioned in full in earlier captions. Those abbreviations are parts of the specimen numbers too, so in a sense you're right, but I'm not sure it is needed to write the names in full again?
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
What are Mortimer's credentials for the theropod database?
Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:
[2] I believe it would count as an expert source, per
WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
"Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2012). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. New York: Random House. p. 92]. ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7." - I can't tell if the bracket after p. 92 is spurious or if there's a missing bracket somewhere else (My childhood copy of the 2007 edition is somewhere in my parents attic, seeing it here makes me want to dig it out when I visit for Christmas)
Do any of the sources perchance indicate how they estimate length/size? I image they estimated based on a comparison of head size to that of similar, more complete, specimens, but it would be nice if that could get spelled out.
Paul makes a general statement about his methodology, not about this particular taxon. But I've added "(size estimates of incompletely known dinosaurs are extrapolated from better known relatives)".
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Just reserving a spot here to make sure this doesn't close without me; I'm swamped in exam prep for the next week, but sometime later than the 16th I'll be giving this a look through.
LittleLazyLass (
Talk |
Contributions)
23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
#2: As can
Cassell & Company Limited. I'd also capitalize the "C" in "Company" and the "L" in "Limited". And the name of the chapter being cited can also be added.
Not sure how to get this info, or if it even exists. Neither volume or issue is mentioned in the sources that cite it, and I can't see the front page (I was sent the specific article at
WP:RX)...
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
#8:
Friedrich von Huene can take a link. Any other authors that have articles?
I prefer to avoid linking authors in citations because 99% of the time they're just duplinks of names already mentioned and linked in the main text. Also, it looks odd when citations by the same author is linked multiple times. Is it necessary? If there is no guideline that encourages this, I'd prefer not (it is also very tedious work). Same goes for similar suggestions below. But note I spelled out full names this time, hehe...
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Here's what I said to HF about this above: Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:
[4] I believe it would count as an expert source, per
WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published.
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
#14:
University of California Press. Why "Berkeley chapter" instead of "Berkeley" (compare with refs #16 & #30)? Are there subsequent editions, that make the "1st ed." necessary"? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles?
#16:
University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links. "2 ed." should be "2nd ed." Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles (besides Holtz Jr., who can be linked again)?
#19: November 6, 2012, not just 2012. Smithsonian Magazine can take a link. Is the publisher "Smithsonian Magazine", or
Smithsonian Institution?
Riley Black could, perhaps, stand a red link, although looks like there's some history there.
#21: Holtz Jr. can take another link. 12 January 2012, not 2011. What is this thing?
It's an online appendix to the book that is currently ref 27. It basically has some additional size estimates and other odds and end, should count as self published by a topic expert. I've changed the date and the too specific title (what it was called from where I copied it from).
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
#22:
Princeton University Press can take a link, and a location.
Gregory S. Paul can take a link. Should be "2nd ed.", not "Second ed." Needs an en dash, not a hyphen.
#30: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Can any authors/editors take a link? Should be "2nd ed.", not "2 ed."
University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links.
This version looked at.
FunkMonk, one or two (or three dozen) comments above, but they're all minor. The one more significant comment is that a lot of sources are cited without any indication of what the relevant page(s) are. If someone wants to check out source #51, which of the 57 pages should they be looking at? I would normally use pin cites (i.e., separate "References" and "Bibliography" sections, like in
The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)), but here it make more sense to use the style of cite that looks like "ARTICLE TEXT.[15]:24–26". --
Usernameunique (
talk)
07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that probably comes back to the old discussion about whether journal articles need more specific page ranges, I think there is an upper limit to what should be accepted, and in some of these cases only some of the pages are needed, so I've substantially cut the one you mentioned (I guess you meant #15?) and some others.
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the delay,
Gog the Mild. Looks good to me.
FunkMonk, a delight to see the full names! All those links aren't required, I just tend to think they're good practice. Especially for the author names, I'm not always going to think to look through the rest of the article to see if a particular author has a Wikipedia article. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
00:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply
AryKun
I have just one very minor comment: Could the gloss explaining that the Bajocian is "a stage in the Middle Jurassic" also be added to the mention in the lead? Otherwise excellent work here.
AryKun (
talk)
11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Added, though the Middle Jurassic is mentioned in the first sentence of the intro. Anything else? Feel free to nitpick, especially about whether technical issues are improperly explained.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"there was no reason to divide them" → "thought there was no reason to divide them"?
That's all I could find after going through this again, besides some
small edits not worth mentioning here. This is very well explained, easy to get through even for someone with little knowledge of dinos beside what you pick up in the elementary school stage of being obsessed with them.
AryKun (
talk)
08:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"Later examinations by Benson of British fossils earlier assigned to M. bucklandii accepted some these a belonging to the species.[20][5] " Some confusion in this sentence. Also, did you intend to have the refs in reverse numerical order?
Changed to "Benson later examined British fossils that had earlier assigned to M. bucklandii and found that some of them belonged to the species after all." Changed order of refs, but not something I look for actively.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)reply
" two preserved as tooth crowns" How is this a preservation? Does this mean someone supplied what they guessed was the proper size casts?