This is the first FAC about an
azhdarchid, the
pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind.
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comments by Z1720
Non-expert prose review.
"The specimen was made the holotype of the new genus and species Phosphatodraco mauritanicus in 2003;" Suggest wikilinking holotype
"In 2020, the paleontologists Claudio Labita and David M. Martill" I don't think "the" is needed here? It sounds weird to me, but it might just be personal preference.
As an azhdarchid, it would have had a proportionally long neck, small body, and long limbs. – You already have "Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs, while their bodies and feet were small." elsewhere in the introduction, combine the two?
Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs – maybe start a new paragraph here? This does not relate to the previous sentence anymore.
I prefer three paragraphs for shorter articles, and since the combination of the sentences suggested above made it shorter, I think it might be better now anyway?
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
low skulls that were much longer than wider, and some that were much shorter, – much shorter than what? I assume it is not supposed to mean "much shorter than wide"? (Aren't they all much longer than wide?)
Specified as "very long, low skulls that were up to ten times longer than wide, and some that were much shorter than that, closer to those of other pterosaurs."
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Combined, the long wing metacarpals and legs made azhdarchids relatively taller than other pterosaurs – when walking, right? Not taller when flying.
No doubt, the source just says "The combined long legs and elongated wing metacarpal gives azhdarchids longer limbs and taller frames, relatively speaking, than other pterosaurs (fig. 25.10)", but the caption of that figure specifies they're depicted as standing, so I thought it was ok to add "when standing".
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that if Kellner's suggestion that the series actually represents vertebrae C3-C8, – is an "is correct" missing here?
The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola – add the Kellner number in brackets, as done with the other vertebrae?
I'm actually a bit unsure about this one. Witton and Naish show what they say is the "complete neck" here
[2] based on Kellner, but it actually excludes the posteriormost preserved vertebra, which is the C9 of the original describers. So I don't know if this means they would actually consider it the first dorsal instead? Or maybe it's just because that vertebra isn't preserved in a way that they can include it, since it's only visible in front view in the fossil?
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Witton and Naish suggested that their more generalist lifestyle could explain the group's resilience compared to other pterosaur lineages, which did not survive until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids – if I remember correctly this is now somewhat outdated (Longrich study from Morocco)?
Changed to "which were not thought to have survived until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids did". Then as the text is chronological, the Longrich study should show ideas have changed.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
with aquatic environments, such as rivers, lakes, marine, or off-shore – I found this mixture of nouns and adjectives a bit confusing.
but Witton thought this unlikely due to the terrestrial bias of their fossils – the previous text suggest the opposite, an absence from terrestrial environments?
There is a disagreement in the literature that is only now being published, so Witton refers to the earlier ideas proposed in his 2008 paper. Only in 2021 does there seem to have been refutation of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. But for now, I just added "supposed" before "terrestrial bias" to show uncertainty.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Their proportions indicate they were not good swimmers on the other hand, and while they could probably launch from water, they were not as good at this as some other pterosaur groups. – Attribute this (and other claims in this paragraph) to Witton? Not sure if it is really universally accepted.
As I said at GA, I still have a gripe with Mauretania being described as "Latin for North Africa", because the name Mauretania refers to the land of the
Mauri whose kingdom extended only across the western North African coast before becoming a client of the Roman Empire. The statement "Latin for North Africa" is false, it's Latin for "Mauri territory" or "land of the Mauri" etc. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to put down "the specific name refers to the region of Mauretania" and then use a different source not related to Phosphatodraco to quickly say what Mauretania means. I'm curious what others think about this
Dunkleosteus77(talk)00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for
North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco".
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Move the refs around, because right now it looks like the describers support the statement "while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco," but tomorrow or day after I'll try to find a better wording if I can
Dunkleosteus77(talk)03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think we're awaiting a source review. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake, please do, otherwise
Funk, best add a request at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Source review
"Alexander W. A., Kellner" – are given name and sure name swapped here?
Other than these nitpicks, all formatting seems to be ok. All sources are of high quality, and all relevant sources have been cited as far as I can see. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply