Talk:Cryolophosaurus

Size

The article says Cryolophosaurus is 6-8 m long, but the holotype and only found specimen is 6,5 m long http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Coelophysoidea.htm#Cryolophosaurusellioti I found this on the Theropoda Database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Cryolophosaurus did fall outside Dilophosauridae in da analisys of tawa... and so did another analisy i cant remmeber da nameBrisio (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it humorous that someone would post a comment in an intellectual forum using "da" instead of "the". I mean really, is "da" that much easier to type than "the"? - Myrddin_Wyllt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.204.126 (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Snout shape

It seems to have become popular to restore the skull of Cryolophosaurus more like Dilophosaurus, in light of recent classification. But to preempt a potential removal of our current images, on grounds that they are outdated, consider that Cryolophosaurus is closer related to Dilophosaurus sinensis than Dilophosaurus proper itself. That species has a much deeper snout with a much less pronounced "kink"[1], which actually resembles the "older" Cryolophosaurus restorations more. Just saying. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If you check commons:Category:Cryolophosaurus you'll find that there are two images of skull restored with a more pronounced kink than the others. What should we do with them? Iainstein (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

They all seem to be casts of the same sculpt. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I realized that. Is there any better placement for the better of the images? Iainstein (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are too many images as is. Why have so many photos of a skull that is mainly sculpted? Also, images should never be placed on the same row. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Now that I look more closely, it does seem that the Royal Ontario Museum mount has a different, more slender and kinked snout though (with even more teeth in the premaxilla, and a longer nostril), all the others on Commons are the same old reconstruction. But I think the old reconstruction is alright when we use photos in three quarter perspective and the front, because the shape is distorted and hidden. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, do you think that you could modify, or if it would save time, recreate the size comparison so it looks more like other standard comparisons. Also, if it would be possible, could it have an elongated snout, as well as a less-pixely appearance. If you do not think it would be easiest for you, is it possible for you to pass this message on to Dinoguy2? IJReid (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to make an entirely new one for some time (harder than simply painting on a map), but it should be pretty easy to shave the head a bit. It could even be done in MS Paint. Do you have an image editing programme? FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not totally sure about this computer. There is another one in my household that has an older version of Adobe Photoshop Element, but currently, that computer is not available to use. Do you know how to get MS paint or any other image editing program onto a computer? IJReid (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have Windows, it should be there already. Otherwise there's GIMP[2], which is free and can do pretty much the same as Photoshop. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

I found a skull reconstruction by a Flickr user who placed it under a suitable license for wikimedia, and transferred it to commons. After a little manipulation in Photoshop, I believe that the image is now good enough for inclusion into the article, but there is nowhere to place it. The image is commons:File:Cryolophosaurus ellioti (Dinosauria; Theropoda) skull reconstruction.jpg. What should be done with it? IJReid (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a photo from a US museum plaque, so we can't have it on Commons... There is no "freedom of panorama" in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Really, drat! How do you know? IJReid (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Slightly related. Those stupid americans, us canadians never liked them much! If they had less restrictive freedom of panorama, we would already have an image of the new reconstruction of Spinosaurus [3]. Argh!!!!! :( IJReid (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I know because I've uploaded many of his museum images recently, the image description even says "Skull line drawing of the holotype, FMNH PR1821, of Cryolophosaurus ellioti Hammer & Hickerson, 1994 (public display, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, USA).". And yeah, lack of FOP has deprived us of many images... Almost too many, see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Monolophosaurus_in_garden.jpg Though I may have been a bit overzealous, Monolophosaurus casts hardly contain 3D printed elements (the replicas were made too long ago)... FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• As a heads up, all skeleton mounts in the article now show the kink-snouted version (which is in line with its phylogenetic position as sister to Sinosaurus). The old life restorations also look fine I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cryolophosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

My first thoughts are that the article is in excellent shape and very close to GA quality. I will give a more detailed point-by-point review later, but first I wanted an explanation for a few things that struck me as odd:

• The article uses parenthetical references for several scientific papers. This is, of course, an acceptable referencing style. However, elsewhere it uses "plain" references (i.e. no mention of the author in the body of the article, just in the ref itself). This seems to be more or less random. If there is a reason for this I'm missing let me know, otherwise one style should be picked and used throughout.

The years are the only things I find are in the brackets. They are like that because different references might have the same author. For example, many sentences say "So and so (date of publication) estimated the length of Cryolophosaurus to be ...", and because the publication year is listed, they can be differentiated from other refs. IJReid (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps my point was misunderstood. There is nothing at all wrong with "Author (date)" citations. My question is why this format is used in some sections, while in others the scientist who is responsible for the given knowledge is not mentioned in the body of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: It all depends on the content of the section. For size, estimations by different authors are often made by different features. In the case of distinguishing features, different features can often be identified by different authors. For stuff like paleoecology, unless there is contradicting information, to different studies can be combined for the best overall coverage. IJReid (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some paleontologists are (red) linked, while others are not. Red links are OK, but it is not clear why only some of the paleontologists are linked.

Those would be the head authors of the study/article

Very good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Top level sections shouldn't start with a left-aligned picture. Please re-arrange the pics so that doesn't happen.

Not anymore, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nonetheless, do you mind if I move the "Discovery and naming" picture down one paragraph? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you did, the layout would be uglier, as the titles below will be squashed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would like the "Paleopathology" section to be a bit longer if possible. It looks odd having a section that is one line long. Alternatively, the section header (and main link) can simple be removed as the material fits naturally into "diet".

Done for now. If the paragraph gets expanded a lot, I would like to remove it into its own section again.

• The use of "recently" and similar should be avoided - give a date instead.

Tried to correct.

That is all for now. I will put the article on hold to wait for changes/explanations of the above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: I have finished all the above comments. Any more? IJReid (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will have a few more comments this evening. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: Any more comments, or is the article good to go? IJReid (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I got busy and did not make it back to this as quickly as planned. I should have some more comments for you within teh next 24 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Detailed review

First, I made some grammar tweaks. Please review those to make sure everything is acceptable.

General comment: The scientists' full name (not just last name) should be given on first usage.

done

Lead

• "including the single species" - "including" implies a group; suggest rewording (I usually used "known from one" or "with one known" for monospecific genera, but then you will want to change the "known from" already there - perhaps split into 2 sentences.)

done

• "As of this year" - change to date

done

• Species found in the same area is likely not important enough for the lead

done

Description

• "clearly a top predator" - does clearly really add anything?

done

• do weight estimates really vary from 165kg to 460kg or is one an error? - regardless the smaller # should be listed first.

done

• "this individual" - no context for "this", so probably something like "the most complete individual" or "one used for estimates" or something like that would be better. Alternatively (and perhaps preferably), put holotype paragraph first.

done

Material

• I would remove this subheader as unnecessary

done

Skull

• "which was discovered along with part of the rest of the skeleton" - seems completely unnecessary, perhaps drop entire phrase

done

• The use as a social display piece seems like to be disputed, so should credit the scientist as per your guidelines for when to credit

done

• "A recent study" - change to author + date (and rephrase sentence accordingly)

done

Distinguishing anatomical features

• Is the lesson on what a diagnosis consists of necessary?

removed

• It is not clear is he two sets of distinguishing characteristics are competing or complementary (I assume the later, but it should be clear - use "additional" or similar.)

done

Cranial ornamentation

• This makes the "social display" bit in the "skull" section redundant, does it not? Perhaps remove that sentence from the skull section.

done

Diet

• This paragraph seems to contradict itself. If the ribs were only suspected/possible prosauropod, it should say so.

done

Paleopathology

• What does this small splint suggest?

not suggested in ref, to add would be OR

To be clear, the previous wording left me hanging - I expected an explanation where none was given. The new wording solves that concern.

• A little drive by comment: "This bone is almost identical to Dilophosaurus and Sinosaurus, except for a small splint from the fibula located just above the ankle." Why is that relevant under palaopathology? It is basically comparative anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

removed

Paleoecology

• There doesn't seem to be much difference in content between the two paragraphs - suggest dropping the subheaders

done

• "Dinosaurs lived on all seven continents, but Antarctica was the last continent to produce dinosaur fossils" - doesn't seem relevant, suggest dropping it

done

• "Recent models" - replace with date ("models formulated in ...") or drop "recent"

done

That should just about do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: I have completed all the comments, is the article ready now? IJReid (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The only other thing I have at the moment is that the pics need Alt text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB: Added alt text, all the changes made by you are good. IJReid (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   A spot check did not reveal any close paraphrasing issues

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Referencing is excellent

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Nothing I can think of missing; off topic asides have been removed

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   A variety of sources and POVs are represented

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Perhaps a bit over illustrated for some tastes, but nothing serious

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am happy to promote Cryolophosaurus to GA status. Very good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cryolophosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827235029/http://www.antarcticvp.com/ to http://www.antarcticvp.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408051621/http://www.augustana.edu/academics/geology/department/fryxell.htm to http://www.augustana.edu/academics/geology/department/fryxell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

While for a long time, our current taxobox image has been the best on Wikimedia, I believe that we now have an image worthy of replacing it. First, there are multiple problems with our current taxobox image. It's foreshortened, making the skull look different from what the actual skull on the mount looks like. The neck also appears much shorter than the neck on the mount actually is, as well as the torso. This taxobox image is also a panorama. This distorts the mount from its actual posture, making it look like it's running straightforward, instead of curving to the right as in the actual mount. While distortion of posture itself isn't too much of an issue, distortion of the posture of the mount also distorts the proportions of the mount, as seen in the skull and neck once more. I am proposing a new, non-foreshortened and non-panorama image of the Antarctic Dinosaurs mount. While this does differ from the mount in the current image, it can still fit both Cryolophosaurus turning out to be a basal tetanuran, or something closer to Dilophosaurus. This is because while this mount does resemble dilophosaurids more, a Cryolophosaurus as a basal tetanuran would still have retained dilophosaurid traits. And the longer neck might actually be more accurate in this mount, since the cervical verts figured in Smith et al resemble the shape of the FMNH mount's cervical verts more than the shorter cervicals on the Ultimate Dinosaurs mount. There is one con to this new photo, however: the surroundings can be a bit distracting and cluttered. However, I do think that the pros definitely outweigh the cons on this one. Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• 
  The new taxobox image I'm proposing.

Wow, that's very interesting, seems they made a completely new reconstruction, see also this current discussion at WP:Dinoart:[4] So yeah, it should definitely be used, do you have more photos of the mount, close ups of the head? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I have this photo of the head. I also have a lot of photos from other angles, and photos of the bones on display(including the type skull), but I haven't uploaded them to Wikimedia yet. Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• 
  The close-up of the head.

Cool, those could also be very good additions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this reconstruction is based on the undescribed paratype material in the "New information on the theropod dinosaur Cryolophosaurus ellioti from the Early Jurassic Hanson Formation of the Central Transantarctic Mountains" SVP 2017 abstract. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Again

Before an edit war is begun, pinging relevant parties Morosaurus shinyae Zissoudisctrucker FunkMonk

• 
  New
• 
  Old (updated)

It appears we have a problem over the taxobox image, between the two shown above. The one on the left, discussed above, is a clearer image and I think that makes it better. The one on the right, a new version of an old image, was removed previously for being distorted by perspective, but now is essentially the same as the other, while being a larger file, and less clear at full resolution. Personally I think the clearness of the left is most important, but others should input. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

They seem functionally close to identical to me so I'd vote for the higher resolution one, yes. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The old photo seems like a panorama to me, since the photo shows an almost straight skeleton. Considering that the skeletal mount itself is curved, this would imply a panorama shot, which would cause distortion.Morosaurus millenii (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also go with the left one, it is sharper. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The one on the right has the higher resolution by definition ((3,858 × 1,283 pixels, file size: 1.13 MB) vs (2,591 × 873 pixels, file size: 636 KB)). The current update of the file is not a panoramic. It was shot from an angle intend to highlight the mount with as little obstruction from signage/background clutter possible. The image is objectively sharper. Zissoudisctrucker (talk) 011:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolution and sharpness is not the same. It doens't matter how high your resolution is if your lens isn't focused. It is pretty evident that the one on the left has more detail as a result. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a small note, I just updated the resolution on the left image (4,497 × 1,515 pixels, file size: 4.81 MB). Morosaurus millenii (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that essentially seals the deal. Considering all input so far has been for the one on the left (excluding image authors) I'm going to put it in the article now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just wonder how the resolution was suddenly increased. Was the upload here downscaled to begin with and you then uploaded the original size over it? Because if you simply upscaled a lower res image, it hasn't gained more detail, it has just been stretched. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the actual resolution was increased as opposed to just the size, since the old image was only 72 dpi, while this new image is 899 dpi, looking at the Properties of both. I did upscale it after I increased the resolution, however, since I saw that the resolution was given in the size, not the dpi here in the talk page. I don't know if the dpi actually is shown in the info on Commons though. Morosaurus millenii (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, upscaling is never a good idea though, it actually worsens image quality. Yes, it makes the overall image bigger, but all it does is stretch the image, and you only gain blur, not more information. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So, I updated the image one more time. This time, I went back to the original and increased resolution only, not size. The dimensions are still the same as the original, although the file size is larger from the resolution increase to 1600 dpi this time. Morosaurus millenii (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)