Took interest for Baby Louie so I decided I'll go and expand the article. Now that the article has grown quite a bit I'll try to get it to FA status. Feedback is greatly appreciated.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll see if I can get time to review it, though regular peer review is always archived quickly, so
WP:paleopr is maybe more reliable if that happens. At first glance, there is a bunch of
WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:
[1]FunkMonk (
talk)
22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"Nearly complete Macroelongatoolithus nest (specimen 41HV003-16)" I'm sure it's from source, but how come the identity in the caption is different from in the Commons image description? Should be modified there too if the sources say otherwise.
Since only juveniles are known, I think it would make sense to swap the placement of the two life restorations, so that the very hypothetical adult goes in the section about theorised ontogeny, and the embryo goes to description where embryonic anatomy is discussed.
"in December 2013 the specimen was finally repatriated to China, permanently resting at the Henan Geological Museum with specimen number/catalogue HGM 41HIII1219" But this reads as if the entire nest specimen goes by this number?
"The holotype, HGM 41HIII1219, is assigned to Baby Louie" Odd wording, could say "Baby Louie was assigned the specimen number HGM 41HIII1219 and designated as the holotype" or something like that?
As a non-native English speaker, I often send articles to the
WP:guild of copyeditors before FAC to make the text smoother, probably good to list it before a nomination.
As an aside, very nice to see this article I made many weeks after the taxon was described because no one else cared finally expanded fully!
I personally think that giant oviraptorosaurs are very interesting species, and their skeletal remains are quite sparse in the fossil record so it's surprising that no one wanted to start the article. I'm glad you liked it! 🤏.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I also like oviraptorosaurs in general, but they get very little attention here. But at least I got Nemegtomaia to FAC hehe. Perhaps we could work on some more of their articles.
FunkMonk (
talk)
10:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Some reviewers indicated that the embryo restoration
[2] showed pronated hands. I think it could be explained by the angle of the arm, but if you disagree, perhaps you could find a way to edit it.
"The quadratojugal was tall and nearly triangular bone that is joined by the jugal." You change from past to present tense, should be consistent, and it seems you use past tense mostly. Check throughout for this to make it consistent across the article.
"identified as belonging to the oospecies Macroelongatoolithus xixiaensis" Perhaps clarify what this means. The article stats for example "representing the eggs of giant caenagnathid oviraptorosaurs."
I think the general reader would be unsure what a caenagnathid even is, could perhaps define what features set them apart and why Beibelong is considered one under classification.
"Accordingly, caenagnathids had teeth when young and were progressively lost during their growth." But is there any actual proof of this? It seems they don't even consider the possibility that there were never teeth at all...
The evidence that they provide are those features in the dentary of some caenagnathids. Maybe removing the "Accordingly" for "According to the team" would make it sound less conclusive.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
"Beibeilong was a notably large caenagnathid and among the largest oviraptorosaurs, estimated at 7.5 m (25 ft) long" Should also be clear in the intro here that's a size extrapolated from the embryo.
"Beibeilong remains have been recovered from the Gaogou Formation located in the Xixia Basin" This reads as if there are more specimens than just that nest. Could maybe say "Beibeilong is known from" to make it more general.
That should be all from me, after this is fixed I think you can send it to GAN while you wait for the copy editors, and then it's probably ready for FAC after that (where I can give my support since I already reviewed it with FAC in mind). The main challenge is probably to get the technical wording understandable enough for most lay readers, and make the text flow well in general.
Changes look good, and I answered some comments above. I think only the English variation and tense consistency issues are missing now?
FunkMonk (
talk)
14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply