Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kelenken/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2022 [1].

---

Kelenken

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass Maybe I'm missing something but where does the source say that File:Feeding Kelenken.jpg is released under a CC license? Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

In the upload by the original artist:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included

Fixed now, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• FN6 should include book editors

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=

What ref would be an example of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FN8: JSTOR URL plus JSTOR ID. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, removed URL. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• FN11 is missing publisher

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• FN18 is missing ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequers

Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.

Re: "dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked.

Ah, good catch, the source specifies placental mammals, which I somehow overlooked, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarified as "The describers concluded these bones belonged to a single specimen" to keep it in past tense for the narrative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why it hasn't been done to this particular area I can't say, and I have looked for newer articles that might have done it, but nothing came up. But I have added "from different areas of the Collón Curá Formation". 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Support by CMD

I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is

• Article: "...hunting in areas with tall vegetation, providing the agility needed to move amongst vertical obstacles, while the narrow upper maxilla permitted greater access to small prey animals hidden among tree trunks or stones"
• Source: "...hunted in regions with high vegetation, permitting their greater agility between verticle obstacles. A very narrow upper maxilla would furthermore facilitate the apprehension of small animals hidden amongst trunks or stones"

Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller prey animals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The "They" does not work here, as the previous sentence uses "They" to refer to Kelenken. Perhaps simply remove "They pointed out that"? Switching to support now, in anticipation that is resolved. Best, CMD (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed they to "these researchers", to make it clear it is their interpretation. Thanks for the second review! FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird", an extinct group of large, predatory birds)". Suggest 'Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird") an extinct group of large, predatory birds'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• "The long and slender tarsometatarsus of Kelenken instead shows". "instead" of what?

Removed "instead", that sentence was copied from a place in the article where it is contrasted with some earlier views. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and eat small animals". As we have just been told that it is a predator, "and eat" this add anything to the lead. Why else would it chase them down? And this is covered again in the next sentence. Similarly in the main article.

Removed "and eat". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the most completely known skull of a large phorusrhacid known at the time." "known ... known". Any chance of some variation?

Changed to "most complete skull of a". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Previously, such skulls were known only from the fragmentary Devincenzia and Phorusrhacos, the latter of which disintegrated during collection (leaving only the tip of the beak), which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes, until the discovery of Kelenken." This doesn't really work as a single sentence. Suggest breaking after "Phorusrhacos".

Split, though I wonder if semicolon could have worked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the latter of which disintegrated". Delete "of which".

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "though their validity had not yet been confirmed through cladistic analysis". Perhaps 'had not then been ...'?

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism". Anything in the sources which wuold allow you to suggest why.

There is probably not a common cause for all of these groups, but as was the case with mammals, there were just a lot of niches left for large animals after the non-bird dinosaurs disappeared. I can't find a source related to these birds that states it explicitly, though, but it is implied later in the article where it is compared to meat-eating dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• "while there are records from Europe, these are disputed." This doesn't make sense to me. (Records of what? Do you mean remains? What is disputed? Obviously not that they are Phorusrhacids as you have just said there are records of them in Europe.) I realise that this is summary style, but any chance of unpacking it a little?

Changed to "while fossils from Europe have been assigned to the group, their classification is disputed". FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "they may also have made reverse movements." Which would be what?

To Europe and back again, but too much detail for this article, so snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "that invaded from North America in the Pleistocene." "invaded"! Really? Is there not a more neutral synonym?

Changed to "entered", but "invasion" is commonly used in biology too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Invasive species etc. But without context it reads oddly to me.

• "very small wings". Actually, they weren't. The word 'relatively' needs to be worked in somewhere.

Went with "proportionally", since they were almost comically small compared to the overall size of the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid". Is it known how it ranks amongst post-dinosaur avians more generally?

Only in the skull-size, since so little of the skeleton is known, the sources don't say anything about how it would compare to for example the elephant birds. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "437.14 mm (17.210 in)". This seems a ridiculous level of purported accuracy, given what is being measured. Suggest rounding to the nearest mm.

Rounded to 437 and added sigfig to a bunch of measurements. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, does the source really offer a level of accuracy of a hundredth of a millimetre?

Table 1 in the source gives: "Tarsometatarsus, maximum length 437.14". FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

!

• "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid ... Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known". If you are going to repeat this, could the two statements appear next to each other? And why the switch in tense - "is" to ""was"?

Good point, combined to "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid, about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "3 m (9.8 ft)". Decimal feet?[!]

Should be fixed with the sigfig mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Such a strong downwards projection resembles most closely the condition seen in large to medium sized phorusrhacids such as Phorusrhacos, Patagornis, Andrewsornis, and Andalgalornis than the weaker projections of the smaller psilopterines." I think you are missing something like 'more' or 'rather' before "than".

Said "rather than". FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines". Is there a reason for the havering "apparently"?

The uncertainty is due to the crushing of the skull, so any comparison will to some extent be assumption. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Link process.

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "is almost quadrangular, which is different from that of brontornithines, which are rectangular". Are rectangles not a category of quadrangles? (Do you mean 'square?) Likewise with "The fourth trochlea is quadrangular, which contrasts with the rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia."

Hmmm, good question, but that's how the source puts it: "a subquadrangular midshaft of the tarsometarsus (differing from the rectangular and very wide midshaft of brontornithines)" and "a quadrangular trochlea of metatarsal IV (contrasting with the proximodistally rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia pozzi)". Will try to ping Jens Lallensack, who should be better at interpreting anatomical terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think we need to blame the source here! Apparently, with "quadrangular" they mean "irregularly quadrangular". Probably this term should be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, added "irregularly quadrangular" in two places. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly based on them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies". This construction does not work. It's the "rather than". Maybe something like 'Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks. These were not based on detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies ...'?

Them having large skulls with hooked beak is the fact these hypotheses were based on, so "had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks" won't work, as that implies their large skulls and hooked beaks are hypothetical. Tried with the following, though it may also have issues: "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly inferred from them having large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses". FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "14 m s−1 ~50 km h−1". Should the conversion not be in parentheses? And the "-1" should be superscript.

Probably, but I don't know how to do either in this kind of context, any pointers? FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

~50km⋅h⁻¹, which is ~50km⋅h⁻¹.

Added, and all of it in parenthesis with converted numbers, but not sure if it looks right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I think I have fixed it.

• Cheetahs - is their speed known? Even if only in a foot note. Almost any reader is going to be looking it up.

There is, as can be seen here[3] in the introduction, but I'm not sure how to show it in the same format, my math and template skills are pretty poor... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Added. Could you insert the source?

Thanks, done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• "This could be used for accessing the marrow inside the bones". What is "This"?

Added "strength". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle, the skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”." → 'These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle. The skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”.'

The part after the first comma is connected to the part after the second comma, so tried by replacing the first comma with a semicolon instead. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "a maximum downwards strike". What is being maximised? (I am guessing either extension or force.)

Changed to "and for helping it rise from a maximum extension after a downwards strike". FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor; the "Psilopterine Skull Type", which was plesiomorphic (more similar to the ancestral type), and the "Terror Bird Skull Type", which included Kelenken and other large members, that was more specialized, with more rigid and stiff skulls." That's a heck of a sentence. Perhaps break it up?

Split by period instead of semicolon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the earlier late Early ..." Anything you can do about this?

Tried with "contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene". FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and instead allowed ..." Which of the two allowed this?

Rephrased to "The open environment allowed more cursorial and large animals to occur, contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene, with its well-developed forests with tree-dwelling animals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review, answered all points, though the quadrangular issue is not yet solved. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments above, but happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review and assistance! FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Support by Dunkleosteus77

• Could you break up the sections into smaller subsections? Giant 1,500 word essays can look pretty daunting to read Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Did to with paleobiology (added "Limb function" and "Skull and neck function" sections), but there isn't much of a natural cut-off point in the description, which apart from a short paragraph, is almost entirely about the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried with a skull and leg bone section under description, not sure if it works well. Wish they had described the known toe bone too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you could also cleave off Beak or Mouth or Jaws? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of the same bones participate both in the upper jaw and the rest of the skull, and the text (and description) doesn't separate the two, so there is no natural cut-off point. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• It's better to say 5 ft 6 in than 5.5 ft or 66 in. Like, 17.210 inches is not as intelligible as 1 ft 5.28 in. You can do this by using ftin instead of in when using {{convert}} Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Added the "sigfig" parameter to some of these. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No I mean, instead of saying "The holotype skull is about 716 mm (28 in) long", say "716 mm (2 ft 4 in)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Done, I'm not really a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Can you find anything about a Tehuelche spirit named Kelenken? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There isn't more in the relevant sources (would be beyond the scope of this article to use sources not related to the subject), but could be nice with a dedicated article that could be linked, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems the Dutch have a stub about it Kelenken (mythologie), which describes it as a demon born of the personification of night, and whose brother is "Maip" which incidentally is the namesake of another theropod Maip Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Worthy of an article, yeah, not within my expertise, tough. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos" I feel like this is supposed to be saying that Phorusrhacos was the largest phorusrhacid previously known, unless the other largest phorusrhacids (mysteriously unnamed) were all roughly the same height Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is actually a workaround because the other "phorusrhacid" mentioned in the paper, Brontornis, is generally not thought to belong to the group anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• "After the extinction of the non-bird dinosaurs, during the early Cenozoic" I think you should switch these 2 clauses Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism" this sounds like all birds did this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed to "some bird groups". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• " While they are the most speciose group within Cariamiformes" who's they? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is clarified in the full sentence: "While they are the most speciose group within Cariamiformes, the interrelationships between phorusrhacids are unclear due to the incompleteness of their remains." FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• You seem to talk a lot about what happens well after Kelenken disappears from the fossil record, and I wonder if you should make it a point that Kelenken far predates the joining of the Americas, the extinction of the thylacosmilids, and the first phorusrhacids in North America if you're going to mention those kinds of things, especially because you never say how old Kelenken is until the very end of the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the following before that part, which should make it clearer: "Kelenken itself lived during the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Add when they arrive in North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Most people aren't familiar with geological time, so an actual number date would be more useful than saying just Pliocene or Pleistocene by themselves Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources in question don't give numbers, and I think it's too much detail for this article anyway, the number is given for the subject of the article, which should be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• The first 2 paragraphs of Paleobiology, do you think those could go under a Diet section? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It think it would be pointless unless a section about something other than diet is added under paleobiology, but there simply isn't anything to add yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Most people don't know what Paleobiology is, so a heading of Diet would be helpful for someone looking for info on diet specifically just checking the table of contents Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Added a Feeding and diet section with the others as subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• For speeds, it's a bit strange to read m · h^-1, and I'm worried the average person doesn't know how to read negative exponents. It'd be better if you used mph and kph Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That's what the source says, I don't know enough about such equations to change it, and I'm not sure it's good to present a different format than what the source does. Perhaps Gog the Mild has ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dunkleosteus' point. If it were my article, which it isn't, I would have 'suggested a speed of 50 km/h (31mph), and that of Mesembriornis suggested 97 km/h (60mph)' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you got confused with the source's units actually. The source says 14, 27, and 29 m · s^-1 (meters per second), but you write m · h^-1 (meters per hour) which is quite different. You should use the template for conversion, {{cvt|14|m/s|mph kph}} which outputs 14 m/s (31 mph; 50 km/h) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit over my head, if anyone wants to change it, feel free, but I simply don't know enough about it to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and less cursorial (adapted for running)" this gloss might be vague, since it's unclear if cursorial or less cursorial means adapted for running Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Just said "less adapted for running" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• For Skull and neck function, you should include somehow that the authors said "But all available evidence suggests that large-bodied taxa, such as other patagornithines (e.g., Andrewsornis, Patagornis) and the truly gigantic phorusrhacines (e.g., Kelenken, Devincenzia), resembled Andalgalornis in transforming all three flexion zones into thickened, reinforced, and immobile junctions" just to more clearly connect Andalgalornis to Kelenken. Right now it seems pretty tangential or out of place here. And surely Kelenken has a much more streamlined beak and the conclusions from FEA would've been pretty different had they studied Kelenken over Andalgalornis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Added "such as Kelenken" after "and showed it had lost a large degree of intracranial immobility (mobility of skull bones in relation to each other), as was also the case for other large phorusrhacids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the part on intercranial mobility, just skip over to rigidity (since it's the same statement, just with more familiar words) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

But that is the gist of the study, and where the mention of Kelenken fits best. The skull is rigid because of the lack of intercranial mobility, but the two terms are not synonymous so both need to be presented. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• In the diagram, if Andalgalornis is A–C, what're the other ones? I assume the seriema and the eagle Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Added "the other skulls belong to a red-legged seriema and a white-tailed eagle". FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "at the sides and middle" when you say middle I thought you meant the top, halfway between the head and the tip, not the side of the beak in the middle (at least according to the image). It might be better to say in front of some anatomical landmark Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Said midline instead of middle. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "analyzed the flexibility of the neck" did they use FEA here too? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No, added "By manually manipulating the vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• In Paleoenvironment I think it would be nice to remind us when Kelenken existed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That is already stated as "it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77, how are things looking for you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Small comment, I recommend saying "beak" instead of "rostrum" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get it to make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Changed to upper beak, beak is too unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wubslin

• Phorusrhacids were large, flightless birds with long hind limbs, narrow pelves, very small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak. Are "pelves" pelvises? I think an English plural is more suitable for our general readership than a Latin one, as this may make the meaning unclear.

Changed, can't say if that is indeed the most common spelling, but sounds plausible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Kelenken differed from other phorusrhacids in a combination of features, including the length of its beak, in having a supraorbital ossification (a rounded edge above the eye socket) that fit into a socket of the postorbital process, and in having an almost triangular foramen magnum (the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters). That's quite a sentence! I suggest removing "a combination of features, including"

But not all the features are listed, hence the "a combination of features, including". But changed to "in features such as" to make it shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of placental mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals. Rather than the apparent contradiction of saying one thing, then the contrary, I suggest recasting this sentence as "Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and apex predators. They dominated Cenozoic South America when there were few placental mammalian predators, and co-existed with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals." or something similar.

The point is the contrast, though. Boryaenid mammals (which were related to marsupials) were less of a competition for the birds than the more "advanced" placental mammals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wubslin: - do you still anticipate having more comments here? Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Jens

I know I'm late on this, but it's only a few nitpicks.

Never too late when it's still a nominee! FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• link "generic name" in lead?

I wonder if that's needed when genus is already linked (and has the same destination)? Should it be changed to "genus name" instead? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

My worry is that the reader won't now that "genus" and "generic name" refers to the same concept, and that the link would have the same destination. Yes, maybe "genus name" is simpler. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• "that fit into a socket of the postorbital" – "fits"?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• each other's closest relatives within the group – "within the group" is just redundant/misleading, as it applies to outside the group, too.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines, – should the "the" be deleted?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• approximately at the level of the – "approximately level with the"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• that corresponded to the Middle Miocene Climate Transition, global cooling which had a drying effect on continents. – not sure, but should this be "a global cooling event" instead of just "global cooling"?

Did that, and linked "global cooling". FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to the mammals that characterize sediments of this age, there are also a few fossils of birds, – Since this article is about a bird, maybe give the other bird fossils more room? Not sure why mammals get the focus here. Are these bird fossils indeterminate?

Very hard to find anything on this (nothing turns up on Google Scholar other than Kelenken), the book source only says "In addition to the mammals that characterize the sediments of this age, a few specimens of fish, amphibians, anurans, reptiles and birds are present (Pascual et al., 1984)", and refers to what appears to be a congress talk from 1984: "Pascual, R., Bondesio, P., Vucetich, M.G. et al., (1984). Vertebrados fósiles cenozoicos. IX Congreso Geológico Argentino, Relatorio 2, 9, 439–461. San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina." I assume they're not named or indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I also guess that larger mammals are more relevant for the ecology of a large bird then are small birds. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• That is everything from me. Nice work as always. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, answered all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 02:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.