Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Achelousaurus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 [1].

Achelousaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) & MWAK (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group. We have summarised most of what has ever been written about this animal in the article. This is also MWAK's first stint at FAC, who wrote the main part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check All images seem appropriately licensed and properly used. I note the following:

Added a PD-old tag. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most images lack alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are these a requirement? It is extremely inconsistent whether reviewers ask for these or not, so it has become a bit confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley[edit]

I don't know if I will really do a full review, but I will provide some comments. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the pronunciation note, it would probably be good to use {{cite web}} for the link to the email.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be two instances where the citations are out of order (ie where a citation with a lower number goes after a citation with a higher number when the two are right next to each other).
    • I fixed one instance; the other instance addresses a series of research, where it might be preferable to put them into chronological order. Of course the numbering as such is inherently unstable.
  • There is one point where there are four citations at the end of one sentence; is this really needed?
    • This is the same series of research mentioned above. If we omit a paper, the series is no longer complete.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Adult Achelousaurus had rough bosses above the eyes and on the snout where other centrosaurines often had horns in the same positions," what are bosses?
Note that there is no appropriate article at present for the definition of "boss" as it applies here. An in-text definition would probably be necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Boss" is actually explained in the description section as "(a roundish protuberance)", but the text has been moved around so much that I should probably move it farther up again. The question is whether it's an appropriate description, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added that explanation to the intro and moved explanation in article body up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the genus is monospecific (just having read the lead). If this is the case, then the species should be bolded. If not, then this probably needs to be mentioned.
Yep, I'll bold the full name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now.

Thanks, even if you don't feel like an "expert" on the subjects, all comments are welcome. It is good to know whether the text is understandable to most readers. I can take care of some of these, but can you look at point two and three, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A copy-edit is in process, so I'll fix the remaining issues when that's done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

I think it was removed during the copy-edit, added it back. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity with other kinds of dinosaur", I think that it would be proper grammar to say "dinosaurs" instead of just "dinosaur". Plus, it just seems odd that you would say affinity; maybe say interest or something similar? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Said "less familiar with" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't quite reflect the source correctly. But I made an idiom mistake and should have written "affinity for".--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking back, what I wrote is also a bit too interpretative... FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to link to, so I made that a redirect to dump truck. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes. Choose one or the other. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I fixed this now? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no. See MOS:DASH.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed them all to – , is that it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentences "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity for other kinds of dinosaurs.[15] In 1987 and 1989, horned dinosaur specialist Peter Dodson was invited to investigate the new ceratopsian finds.[15]", only one citation is needed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence might easily seem OR. It is perhaps preferable to make clear from the outset that it is sourced.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, then. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "separate" in the sentence "In 1990, the fossil material was seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the validity of a separate Styracosaurus ovatus, to be distinguished from Styracosaurus albertensis" makes it seem like this is strengthening the case of a new species called S. ovatus. Maybe say instead "seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the collected specimens as being of Styracosaurus ovatus", or something like that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, S. ovatus was already mentioned, making it unequivocal that Dodson was not proposing to name a new species. But his point was not simply to assign the fossils to S. ovatus but to reaffirm its validity, which had been doubted. So, more in general your impression was correct!--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should make it clear that the validity of it was doubted when you first introduce it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doubts inserted.--MWAK (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the time being they declined to name these taxa", to me, at least, implies that the taxa are still unnamed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the phrase was simply "They declined to name these taxa", it might suggest they had never been named. Adding "For the time being" correctly suggests that they were named at some point in the future.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you then try and find a way to reword it? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try...--MWAK (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sentence "Sampson had continued his studies of the material since 1989", what time exactly does this occur? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sampson doesn't say. Of course, this functions simply as an introduction to remind the reader that Sampson's 1989 studies had been mentioned earlier.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to mean it was to "win her favour", but she isn't actually mentioned in the source used, so it would probably have to be snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, since it isn't in the source, and isn't really relevant to the dinosaur's name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a sentence separate from the previous one: "Achelous lost the battle when one of his horns was removed". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better after I removed the "Deianira" part? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks odd. Maybe say "Hercules, the mythical hero, won a battle against Achelous, who was in the form of a bull, when the latter's horns were removed." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, how about " During a fight with Hercules, the mythical hero, Achelous took the form of a bull, but lost the battle when one of his horns were removed." FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but it should be "was", not "were". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Additionally, it preserves some bones of the skull rear and sides, among which are a right squamosal bone, the left squamosal, both maxillae, both lacrimal bones, both quadrate bones, both palatine bones, the braincase and the basioccipital bone", uses "both" a lot. I suspect that you could reword this to cut down on its usage. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could replace it with "the left and right" — but then we would be using that phrase a lot. Simply speaking of the "maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" presumes that the reader knows that these are all paired bones. And using "both maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" makes the sentence very confusing. Sometimes you have to sacrifice elegance for clarity.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "None of the specimens were of an advanced individual age", it might be better to say "None of the specimens collected showed dinosaurs of an old age", or something similar, as "advanced" is both slightly confusing (I thought for some reason that "advanced" meant adult) and unneeded technicality. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. It is vague, but the source is deliberately vague in using the word "advanced". It doesn't simply claim that they were not senescent animals. What really was meant by the source was that the level of bone fusion in no known specimen implies it was fully grown. So "adult" is not far of the mark. I feel it is best to stay as close to the source as possible.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added "specimen", better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that there should be commas after Einiosaurus in the sentence "It is about as large as its close relative Einiosaurus but with a much heavier build." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to say the common term, toes, instead of "digits" in this sentence: "As a ceratopsid, Achelousaurus would have been a quadrupedal animal with hoofed digits, and a shortened, downwards swept tail." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it is a common denominator for both toes and fingers, so we would have to be much more wordy to replace it. Digits seems a pretty common word anyhow? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that was my fault. I wasn't thinking, so I didn't take into account the fact that dinosaurs walk on four legs. It's good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what choice shall we make? Personally, I find the Oxford comma a silly affectation, but many will disagree :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this, I'm in on whatever you prefer. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this was fixed, RileyBugz, but I personally don't know how to do it, not a comma guy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most confusing traits in these animals. I'll try to clarify how the column of stacked teeth works.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the things I could above, MWAK will probably have to have a look at the content parts. Also, since the date of description was changed from 1994 to 1995 in some places, I changed all instances; whatever we choose, it should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I still have to review a bit, so hopefully I can finish it before Monday (EST). MWAK did a great job expanding the article to this level. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defined in text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "medially curved" inside commas in the sentence "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the, medially curved, spikes of Einiosaurus; these spikes are, however, less directed to the outside than the comparable spikes of Pachyrhinosaurus"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But now you introduce an ambiguity. The sentence could now be read as "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the medially curved spikes of Einiosaurus, in contrast to the not medially curved spikes".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What could be an alternative? What do you think, RileyBugz? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in fact saying that the spikes of Einiosaurus are medially curved, then saying "the former spikes are, however" instead of "these spikes are, however" should fix the problem. If you are saying that the spikes of Achelousaurus are the ones medially curved, then putting "medially" before frill spikes in addition to doing the previous fix it should fix it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't quite do it. I'll change it into "the spikes of Einiosaurus, which are medially curved".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you talk about the frill spikes that Achelousaurus has, you should probably mention that they primarily cover the sides of the neck (looking at the picture). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spikes are only the two long ones poking backwards, the small ones on the sides are the "epoccipital" processes mentioned in the text. Perhaps this is not clear enough? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems to be the confusion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So is the problem that those processes are mentioned too late in the article, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "the opening at the rear skull side", why not say "the opening at the rear of the skull"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed ambiguous. I'll replace it with "the opening at the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to include "side"? It makes it a bit confusing. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "rear of the skull" is that part of the skull you see when you look at it from behind. The "side of the skull" is the part seen from the side. However, these parts themselves can again be subdivided. The rear has its sides and the side has a rear. In technical texts that rear is called "posterior" or "caudal" but most readers will not understand these terms. Calling it the "back of the side" or the "hind(er) side" will not be very helpful either, I fear. Also note that the phrase is "the opening at the rear of the skull side" not "the opening to the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first occurrence of "et al." should probably be linked (in the article body). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The animals were living on a narrow strip on the east-coast of Laramidia, bordering the Western Interior Seaway, and constrained in the west by the three to 4 km (2.5 mi) high proto-Rocky Mountains", you should probably use the convert template like this: {{convert|3|to|4|km|mi}}. This will yield this: 3 to 4 kilometres (1.9 to 2.5 mi). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a comma after "Transgression" in the sentence "During the Bearpaw Transgression sea levels were rising, steadily reducing the width of their coastal habitat from about 300 to 30 km (186 to 19 mi)." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first comma in the sentence "The lower number of individuals that the smaller habitat could have sustained, constituted a population bottleneck, making rapid evolution possible" should probably be removed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will not improve readability but in principle such a noun clause indeed does not need a comma.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be better to say "was" instead of "would be" in the sentence "That sexual selection had indeed been the main mechanism would be proven by the fact that young individuals of all three populations were very similar: they all had two frill spikes, a small nasal horn pointing to the front, and orbital horns in the form of slightly elevated knobs." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is best to make clear that these are hypotheses by Horner, hardly undisputed facts. I added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Such a tree would as a consequence of the method used never show a direct ancestor-descendant relationship", should probably have commas after "would" and after "used". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, "direct line of descent to" in the sentence "Subsequent studies have sought to determine the precise relationships within this part of the evolutionary tree, with conflicting results regarding the question whether Styracosaurus albertensis, Rubeosaurus or Einiosaurus might have been in the direct line of descent to Achelousaurus" sounds like you mean the descendant of the animal, which would conflict with previous information. It might be clearer to say "most recent ancestor" or something. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. It must of course be the "direct line of ascent".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which outcome is this referring to: "In 2011, a subsequent study by Andrew T. McDonald had the same outcome"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aberrant" should probably be linked to Wiktionary. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more section to go! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

reference info for Achelousaurus
unnamed refs 22
named refs 15
self closed 62
cs1 refs 37
cs1 templates 45
cs2 templates 3
sfn templates 71
use xxx dates mdy
cs1|2 dmy dates 1
cs1|2 last/first 47
cs2 mode 8
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (13)
  • cite conference (1)
  • Cite journal (2)
  • cite journal (25)
  • cite mailing list (1)
  • cite thesis (3)
List of cs2 templates
  • Citation (1)
  • citation (2)
List of sfn templates
  • Sfn (17)
  • sfn (54)
explanations
  • Since "Jack" Horner publishes under his formal name of John R. Horner, this form should be used (see ref 3). In all other instances in the Sources section the formal name is used.
    Fixed, we have tried to abbreviate all names anyway, so this was a slip. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why some of the items in the bibliography are inset – what is the distinction?
    Not sure if this is what you mean, but Trappist the monk just placed some book chapters into the bibliography with this edit.[2] Until then, we only tried to keep the books that had been broken up into smaller page ranges in the bibliography. Maybe he can change it back? His other citation edits look good, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I came here I was chasing a cs1|2 error caused by a bug in Citation bot (see here). There were a handful of other cs1|2 errors on this page so I fixed them. The most common was the use of |editors=. In fixing that particular error, I noticed that but for one, they were all the same book edited by all of the same editors, had all the same title, publisher, isbn, ... except for author(s) and chapter titles. That kind of repeated citation is why editors at cs1|2 suggested the creation of {{harvc}} – to reduce the clutter in a reflist caused by unnecessary repetition of bibliographic data over and over again.
    At the time I made those edits I did not know that this article is a FAC. Now that I know, I'm surprised that it has got this far considering that it has a variety of citation styles in the wikitext, most notably is has a combination of hand crafted citations and templated citations. Surely one or the other should be chosen and implemented for the sake of internal consistency.
    Per the comment below, I have tweaked §Bibliography so that listed items are in alpha order and all have cs2 style because that is how Horner & Dobbs is defined.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if consistency in whether a template is used or not is an issue at FAC, as long as the visible result is the same, but I'll see if Brianboulton is satisfied by the above changes. Thanks for that, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've done, and your explanation, is OK by me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think that these are, pretty obviously, visibly different from those rendered by the cs1|2 templates used in the article:
    1. ref 3: double dot after 'J'; no isbn; no page numbers;
      Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to add page-range and location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. ref 9: http://vertpaleo.org/Annual-Meeting/SVP-2017-program-book-v6-Print-Ready-with-front-co.aspx
      Added link and template. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. ref 15: typically a subtitle is set-off with a colon; multiple pages is 'pp.'; endash between two numbers in a range; no isbn
      Added template, ISBN, and the other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    4. ref 16: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6906&context=etd (a pdf); the total number of pages in the source does not really help the reader verify a statement in a Wikipedia article – an in-source location would be better;
      Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    5. ref 19: isbn; is Dragons' World a publisher? location? in-source pagination instead of total pages;
      Fixed all. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    6. ref 20: editor handling style;
      Fixed by adding template. Also ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    7. ref 25: 'p.' missing the dot; isbn?
      Fixed most while adding template, but MWAK will have to look for location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    8. ref 27: in source locations(s); isbn?
      This seems to be a CD rom (included with the book New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs), but I have no idea how to cite such. Wikipedia:Citation templates doesn't appear to help much. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      So you are citing something that you have not seen? How then does this article even begin to be an FA. If you have not seen this source, what about the others?
      —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      As you may have noted, this is a co-nomination; I and MWAK wrote different parts of the article, and he wrote most of it. I don't have access to many of the sources used by MWAK, but that hardly prevents me from adding citation templates to the sources he added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    9. ref 28: this? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313808125_Macroevolutionary_patterns_in_cranial_and_lower_jaw_shape_of_ceratopsian_dinosaurs_Dinosauria_Ornithischia_Phylogeny_morphological_integration_and_evolutionary_rates; again, total number of pages ...
      Added template and link, MWAK will have to fix page numbers. Seems the article has since been validly published (2017), so maybe the source should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    10. ref 29: what is 252A?
      Added template, not sure what the number means (presentation number?), but it also needs a page-range, so MWAK will have to take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    11. ref 33: isbn?
      Added template and ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    12. ref 34: isbn? total number of pages ...
      Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to look for pages. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    13. ref 37: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash; editor style handling;
      Fixed while adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    14. ref 40: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash;
      Don't think this has an ISBN, not a "proper" book, but added the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    15. ref 52: isbn? total number of pages ...; missing publication date; editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;
      I think all is fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    16. ref 61: editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;
      Fixed all when adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    17. ref 62: this? https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/35700; total number of pages ...;
      Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily an exhaustive list; I haven't the time for that right now.
    Author name-order in the references are variable; they are either surname-given name or given name-surname. Pick one style and use that throughout
    Publication dates are different; the hand-crafted citations don't usually wrap the publication date in parentheses as the cs1|2 templates do
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to fix these examples. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've modified my list.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll add citation templates to these, while MWAK will have to add the page ranges to the sources, many of which I don't have. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better that instead of page-ranges, a citation should list only the actual page(s) that support the factoids stated in the Achelousaurus article. Page-ranges are fine in a bibliography but I think that using page-ranges that cover an entire chapter of a book or entire article in a journal when the source mentions that factoid on only one page or some subset of pages does our readers a disservice because to find the supporting mention in the source they must hunt for it. That is clearly wasting their time. So, in short cites ({{sfn}} templates and the like) and in a long or full cites (those listed in §References), identify the exact pages that support the factoid. For those sources listed in §Bibliography, whole page-ranges may be identified in the {{harvc}} templates, |pp=, though there is no requirement to do so.
    On another topic, ref 32 is a PLOS One journal article. Articles in PLOS One are generally free-to-read. Typically sources linked by identifiers (|doi= etc) are behind registration- or pay-walls. When they are not, consider marking those that are free-to-read by using, in this case, |doi-access=free which will add a green open lock icon after the doi identifier. This may also apply to ref 35 and ref 38. Regardless, all doi identifiers should be checked and those that are free to read, so marked.
    More tweaks to my list.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added then open acces parameter to the journals I know are open access, and added automatic citation templates to all the sources that had DOIs. Will continue with the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added citation templates to books with ISBNs, but MWAK will have to take a look at exact page ranges and some other things. Also note that the sources have shifted a number forwards from ref 16 onwards since the list above was made. This is probably because one redundant book-source was merged (see below). FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear it was because I had to insert another sourced explanation... Great work and I'll add the page ranges later today. I'll also try and find a solution for Ford's Compendium.--MWAK (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I must not be communicating clearly. There are already too many page ranges. For example, this reference is cited seven times (currently ref 35):
    Currie, P. J.; Langston, Jr., W.; Tanke, D. H. (2008). New Horned Dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous Bone Bed in Alberta. Ottawa, Ontario: NRC Research Press. pp. 1–108. doi:10.1139/9780660198194 (inactive 2010-10-01). ISBN 978-0-660-19819-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of October 2010 (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    The reference uses this in-source parameter: |pages=1–108. So, if I, as a reader, want to see where you got one of the six 'facts' that this source supports, you have done me the (dubious) 'courtesy' of telling me that I must search 109 pages to find support for the 'fact'. Really? Surely you can pin down these facts with better precision than that.
    As an aside, Langston's first name probably isn't Junior. See WP:JR. Also, in cs1|2, the value assigend to |url= and which links the value of |title= is considered to be free-to-read. When it is not, as in this case, |url= should be omitted or, as I have done here |url-access=subscription should be added.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We get the issue, we just haven't come around to fix it yet, which should be apparent from the multiple times I mention issues will have to be fixed by MWAK. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not clear to me that you did. In items 1, 4, 10, and 17 of my list you wrote: ... MWAK will have to add page-range ... or words to that effect. Editor MWAK used similar words in this post. Given those words, how am I supposed to interpret that to mean 'MWAK will have to add specific in-source locations'?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Page range" can mean both, as far as I'm aware. You just asked for a more specific page range (as opposed to full), but anyhow, good we agree. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked §Bibliography to use the correct cs1 templates, to delete empty parameters, and to provide for uniform style.
    Gilmore (currently ref 5) has this link and |pages=1–39 but the linked source at archive.org is incomplete having only pp. 1–10. Perhaps this is the same thing except that it's more complete:
    {{cite book |last=Gilmore |first=C. W. |chapter-url=http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100823#page/594/mode/2up |chapter=On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana |title=Proceedings of the United States National Museum |at=Article 16, p[p]. ?? |volume=77 |location=Washington |publisher=United States Government Printing Office |date=1931}}
    Gilmore, C. W. (1931). "On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana". Proceedings of the United States National Museum. Vol. 77. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Article 16, p[p]. ??.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is. Good catch and thank you for providing the better link!--MWAK (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if you are going to use that link, you should not be using {{cite journal}} but should be using {{cite book}} as I have above, because, to the reader, the current citation is a mishmash of original publication date with particulars of the collection publication. And, yet again, the reference uses the source's entire page-range to cite a single sentence. Surely it is not necessary to compel the reader to hunt through 39 pages to find the text that supports that sentence – especially since Gilmore mentions at least one other Sternberg in his article.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the citations serve several functions. To provide evidence that the text is sourced, the present format in principle suffices. For the average reader, however, this function is of little concern. More often he will be interested in finding additional information on the subject. For this he will not need to know the exact page. By far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use. As the pages are a normal part of such a citation, it is highly preferable that they are there. No doubt this is why in most scientific publications such a citation format is standard if not mandatory. Indeed this particular article was later published in an annual compilation, but this aspect is usually disregarded when citing such articles.--MWAK (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a very long discussion about page ranges for journal articles a while back[3], doesn't seem any consensus came out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly we disagree. I might agree with some of what you've written for this particular citation were it part of a bibliography listing. In such a listing the entire page range is wholly appropriate. But that isn't how it is being used in this article. Here it is used as an in-line reference to identify the source where an editor found information to support the text to which it is attached. But, and I shouldn't have to keep saying this, with a 40-page range, it may take some searching to find where the supporting text is located. There is no need to make the reader do that.
    I think that we should not make assumptions about what uses readers make of citations and bibliographies that they find at Wikipedia. If there is any truth to your argument that [by] far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use, then shouldn't you want the citation to be accurate? I have described above why the citation in its current form is not accurate. At Wikipedia we are required to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The editor didn't get it from the link that I provided as an alternate to the 10-page (incomplete) version hosted at archive.org. The information may be there in the new link but that isn't where the editor got it. All of the details in the original citation except publication year, refer to the compilation, not to the original publication; yet, it is cited as though the source is the original publication.
    I note that apparently many of the in-source locations listed in §References are not whole-page-ranges, but appear to precisely locate the source within the referenced work; as they should. But there are others, like Gilmore, where apparently whole-page-ranges are identified. Why this inconsistency?
    Because an FA article is supposed to exhibit Wikipedia's best work, the claim that merely sufficient citing is good enough is, in my view, falling far short of mark. So, I guess, were anyone to ask me, I would have to oppose advancement of this article to FA status because I can't see how merely good enough is our best.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's then combine whole page ranges with {{rp}} page indications, so that we'll have the best of both worlds. Would that be agreeable to you? Will take some time, though, as we'll have to read those sources again :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not be agreeable to me because it introduces a third citation style. I would agree to this:
    1. in-line citations are moved to §Bibliography
    2. {{sfn}} and/or {{harv}} templates identify precise in-source locations
    3. whole page-ranges are included as part of each item in the bibliography where appropriate
    Some of this is already done and has the benefit of consolidating the current two-style citation format into one-style format.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you insist. As said, it will take some time.--MWAK (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no authority to 'insist' on anything. Is there a problem with the task [taking] some time? I do not have access to the sources but I can do a lot of the grunt work of moving in-line citations to §Bibliography if you would like me to do that.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your generous offer but I prefer to do it myself: it will be less confusing :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any event the bibliography should be in alphabetical sequence.
    Seems it was fixed above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No other issues that I can see. The sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton, fixed one, and asked a question for the other. I also have a question for MWAK, shouldn't ref 15 be a page range like the others from that book? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that reference was mistakenly not removed.--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • It'd be good if at least one of the three lead paras didn't start with "Achelosaurus..."
Reworded in second para. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, don't need to mention at the start of the third lead para that it is centrosaurine as you've done so in para 2.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just say "lucky" rather than "fortuitous"?
Shouldn't the style be more formal? Also, for Horner, the situation was not simply "lucky" as being banned from his main research site was potentially disastrous for his career.--MWAK (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be lucky. If you want to emphasize that he was really lucky, then say "extremely lucky" or something like that. We need our readers to understand what we are writing, otherwise, it does them no good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is that he was really unfortunate :o). We might change it to "serendipitous". That's a fashionable concept now-a-days ;o). Besides being much too informal for an encylopedia ("Napoleon was lucky to return from Moscow"), "lucky" poorly combines with "chain of events". I'll change it into "accidental".--MWAK (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not view the word "lucky" as informal, and as it (to me ) is synonymous with fortuitous I see no reason not to use it. However, it is such a trivial thing to argue about that I don't see it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

I'm glad to see this article here, its level of comprehensiveness is quite impressing. Here my first comments, more will follow soon:

Thanks for the copy-edits! FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He stated that paleontologists needed to be cautious when naming new ceratopsian genera because their intraspecific variation (i.e., variation within a species) might be mistaken for interspecific differences (between species). Sampson, however noted that until 1995, only one new genus of ceratopsian dinosaur had been named since Pachyrhinosaurus in 1950, namely Avaceratops in 1986.[22] – This reads as if the latter argument would refuse the former. This can't be the case. I would suggest to at least remove the "however", to break the connection between both sentences.
Well, it is the case. Sampson's argument was: "you have to be careful naming these genera but only one has been named in forty-five years, so we're hardly oversplitting".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can not believe this was his argument, as this would be highly unscientific. And I do not find this statement in the paper either. In the first paragraph of his discussion, he wrote some general sentences, including "one must be cautious in describing new taxa" and "Only a single centrosaurine [In the article you wrote "ceratopsian"] genus has been erected since 1950". But there is no obvious connection between these bits of information. I feel you did over-interpret this.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretative elements were removed and a change was made into "centrosaurine".--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a fragmentary lower jaw is present, which has been catalogued as MOR 485-7-12-87-4.[29] – Could you please explain why you are treating this lower jaw separately, in a separate sentence, and even specify the exact specimen number (you are not doing this for all the other skeletalal elements of the specimen, which are just listed)? I think "MOR 485" (the number for the whole specimen) might already be enough detail here.
I thought about that too, maybe MWAK has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This way we structure the known holotype material as the sources do. Sampson gives only a very vague and incomplete indication. The thesis reveals both the fact that there is a lower jaw — not mentioned by Sampson — and a more detailed accession number. These numbers are not published for any other element. Ford allows us to complete the list.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I still feel these jaws should be just listed with the other skeletal elements of the respective specimen. There is no obvious reason to keep them separate. And I feel these exact specimen numbers for the lower jaws are just too much – they did confuse me a lot while reading (I first thought these were separate finds of isolated jaws) – and I can't think of any situation where people might find this information helpful. When these numbers occur only in the thesis and not even in the first description, there are, in my opinion, simply not relevant and not in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Summary Style policy is about deciding when articles should be split. Certain information — never in itself absolutely excluded — can be too detailed for the main article and should then be moved to a separate article. If e.g. large numbers of Achelousaurus fossils had been found, their elements subnumbered, we should have created a separate list. In this case only a single element is subnumbered, so the principle offers little guidance.
Mentioning the lower jaw in a separate sentence has some advantages. It sets the element apart from the cranium, nicely following a natural subdivision. More importantly, it makes the source structure transparent. Sampson is vague. He mentions the skull but only indicates the bosses and the parietal as present. Only Ford lists the cranial bones. Neither mentions the lower jaw. Your impression of a separate find might be not far off the mark. In 2010 it was made public that MOR 485 represents at least two individuals. Likely that lower jaw was not articulated to cranial material. To which individual did it then belong? Is the museum mount a composite? Was Sampson well aware of these problems inducing him to limit the described material to the bosses and the parietal? Until this is revealed by some publication, it seemed wise to me not to collate too much. We should not suggest that Sampson simply understood the elements listed by Ford to have been part of a single holotype for he might very well have concluded to the opposite. This also shows the importance to give the full subnumber, for otherwise we leave open to what extent the thesis takes a position on this. I'll rephrase the text, disentangling these issues and hopefully, this will make the distinctions seem more natural.--MWAK (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also includes lower jaws, catalogued as MOR 591-7-15-89-1 – same as above.
Here the situation is the same.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the three specimens described in 1995 – When starting the section "Additional finds" like this, you should also move MOR 456.1 here, since it is not one of the three specimens described in 1995, right?
Yes, that was inconsistent. We might change it to "In addition to the specimens discovered by Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, that's not a good criterion either. We might instead make a distinction between material that has been unequivocally referred and fossils that are only possibly belonging to Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an attempt.--MWAK (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A centrosaurine ceratopsid specimen with bosses from the Dinosaur Park Formation (specimen TMP 2002.76.1) found in 1996 was suggested to belong to a new species in 2006, but may instead belong to Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus. – I don't understand, this doesn't preclude each other. Do you mean "new genus" instead of "new species"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source (Sampson & Loewen p. 408) says species, but we may get around the issue by spelling out the full binomials of the species it might belong to (though the source only uses their generic names in that sentence). Or maybe by, as in the image caption, just saying it could be a new taxon instead of species? FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pachyrhinosaurus has a lot of species... "belong to known species of Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus"?--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "new taxon", just to be as close to the source as possible... It is vague, but the source isn't really specific either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a boss is often called "pachyostotic", i.e. consisting of thickened bone.[42] This can be misleading, however: in fact its bone floor is thin and it forms a wide depression with irregular excavations, though it is less depressed than with Pachyrhinosaurus.[33] – Not exactly sure what a "bone floor" is. The bone cortex? I wanted to get an idea by searching the respective passage in the provided source (Ryan et al., 2010) but couldn't find the part discussing the term "pachyostotic", can you help me?
It's on page 141. This article spells it as "pachystotic". As it is in fact not really a boss but a depression, it has a "floor", meaning the vertical thickness between its top and the sinus. I'll rephrase this.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its intermediate position suggests that it shared its habitat with forms roughly found in the middle of its formation. – It is not clear what "intermediate position" means here (could be in a morphological, geographical, or stratigraphical sense). I would also make it more clear if "middle of its formation" means the geographical or the stratigraphical middle.
Rephrased.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull of Achelousaurus was more than twice as strong in its bending strength and torsion resistance. – This is not unambiguous as well: Twice as strong than what?
Added "than the skull of Einiosaurus".--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this reason, Hieronymus considered it unlikely that the bosses served for species recognition as this was already guaranteed by the innate species-specific display rituals preceding a real fight. – I think this misses the main point of the Hieronymus paper. What is missing is the reasoning why they think the bosses were used for combat in the first place. In the Description section, you elaborate on their take on the life appearance of the bosses. But you do not make the link between this inferred appearance and the combat behavior, and on what this is based (comparison with modern animals showing similar morphologies and behaviors). Furthermore, consider changing "real fight" in "fight".
The analogy with extant animals is now mentioned. An explicit contrast has been added with a ritual fight.
  • Others however, tend to see the finds as representing single individuals, not bone beds.[76] – I do not understand this sentence at all. It does not depend on the interpretation of the researcher if something is a bonebed or an isolated find. Its either the one or the other. I also can not find this information in the source provided.
Well, the way a concept is applied, depends on the scientist's conceptual framework. Dodson clearly thought of Achelousaurus as living in herds and being found in bonebeds — he had observed the situation personally, so he might be right within his personal frame of mind. Others just as clearly see the limited amount of specimens referred, as indicative of equally limited discoveries: "Many centrosaurines, such as Centrosaurus, Styracosaurus, Einiosaurus, and Pachyrhinosaurus, are known from multiple skulls and skeletons or bone bed material. Others, such as Diabloceratops, Albertaceratops, Sinoceratops, and Achelousaurus, are known from isolated but well preserved specimens".--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a bone bed does not necessarily imply that there was herding. McDonald (2011) only states that Achelousaurus is known from isolated but well preserved specimens, but he does not state that this means Dodson's claim was incorrect, neither did he discuss anything about herding (perhaps I do miss something). Interpreting this claim as an contra-argument to the herding hypothesis is original research and should be removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a modicum of synthesis present. I'll remove the sentence but Dodson's interpretation then has to go also, as it can no longer be balanced.--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but was it really necessary to remove the argument of Dodson? I don't see that McDonald is necessarily conflicting with Dodson's claim (when there is some evidence for bone beds his general rule might still apply. He doesn't state that bone beds are entirely absent). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted it while moving McDonald's assertion to the Discovery chapter.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe consider removing the section "Paleopathology", and move its content (the syncervical) to the "Description" section, where it might be better placed. The syncervical is quite interesting, but I think the fact that they had been interpreted as pathologies by some people is only of secondary importance, not warranting its own section. The section title also is somewhat misleading, as it implies that there are paleopathologies; the text then says that this possibility is unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had thought of that but there appeared to be a insurmountable obstacle: we have no sourced information on any other part of the postcrania. Creating a separate "Syncervical" subchapter seemed rather ludicrous, while the paleopathology aspect, though indeed in a way deceptive, offered an elegant solution...--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might fit with the section "General built", where you already mention that the head was large and the neck straight. But well, its a minor point, and the decision is on you of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could just change the section title? It does go into possible function... FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be also a good idea, maybe even just combining it as an additional paragraph in "Function of the neck and skull ornamentation"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though not 100% fitting, I'd be for that. To me, it seems logical the function would strengthen the neck during skull impact, but that's apparently not what the writers of the paper concluded... FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to close with two more general comments:

  • The "Description" is quite detailed, and without doubt challenging for most readers. I had problems with some sentences as well. Yes, the article does its best to avoid technical terms, but this also makes the wording more ambiguous and unclear. But the main problem is maybe the lack of illustrations showing the described features. Even if we have full access to such figures, we unfortunately can't refer to specific images right from the article text, as a scientific paper would always do. However, relying entirely on text to describe complex anatomical shapes can be impossible in some cases. In this article, we have the advantage that the relevant anatomical information is concentrated in parts of the skull only. I therefore would propose two things: 1) Expand the image captions, explicitly stating which features discussed in the text can be seen. 2) Some long-term thing probably not realizable during this nomination: Add a diagram of the skull in both lateral and dorsal views, with all the skull sutures and with individual bones labeled, maybe based on the skull reconstruction in Sampson 1995. I think such a figure would make a huge difference.
I fully agree that an explanatory diagram would be most useful. I have limited talents in this field but even then should be able to improve on Sampson 1995 ;o). Meanwhile, I can expand the captions of the two smaller images, which highlight detail already.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This map[4] shows a line drawing of the skull, could perhaps be used as basis. I can scale it up and remove the background, would you be able to add text, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could try :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, MWAK, here's an isolated skull diagram with transparent background[5], not sure which software you have, Photoshop would of course be optimal, but Gimp would do. You can just upload directly on top of that file. If we really need a dorsal view, I'd have to draw it from scratch (tracing a skull-photo or something). Maybe Jens Lallensack has some further thoughts. I've added the preliminary diagram to an appropriate spot in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, and the preliminary diagram already helps a bit, I think. Well, this was supposed to be a suggestion for improvement for the future, it is not something that one can demand until the end of this candidature, so please no hurry. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be finished pretty quickly, I just need to know which features we should highlight and spell out... I guess we should not be as detailed as the diagram in Sampson 1995. Only the dorsal view will take some more time. I like how the image fills an empty space in the text, hehe, we don't have too many images of the subject of the article itself here... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have an old version of Gimp installed but it proved to be just as user-unfriendly and counterintuitive as most software. I'll try good old Paint next and upload the results.--MWAK (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, if you do that, I can maybe do a more "refined" version based on the text you've added afterwards (if necessary). FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt it will be necessary but have full confidence in your powers of refinement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the information flow is not always optimal, but I do not know what to do about it. For example the section "Keratin sheats", whose implications are only discussed much later. Maybe one could think about merging this with the "Function of skull ornamentation" section, to something like "Life appearance and function of the skull ornamentation"? It would make it easier for the reader to follow. The other example is the section "Horner's hypothesis of anagenesis". Based on the wording one can guess that the anagenesis-hypothesis does not currently enjoy wide support, but some of the important argument against this hypothesis are only discussed in the "phylogeny" section. It feels like the anagenesis discussion is somewhat disjunct, with the follow-up to be found within a completely different section. The problem I see is that a reader just interested in the anagenesis (and thus only reading this section) will miss the rest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Hieronymus would have published some biomechanical analysis determining e.g. exact strength values of the ridges and estimating impact forces, such a direct link between morphology and function would have forced us to treat the subject in a single section. As it is, the reader only has to remember that the bosses are padded. It then seems preferable to present a distinct part of the morphology under "Description".
Yeah, the text about the keratin sheaths is only descriptive in nature, and doesn't go into function, so I also think it is more fitting as part of description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lusotitan also pointed out that the anagenesis section is deficient in this respect. I'll add a reference to Sampson's critique.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is now added.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting now – thank you a lot for this comprehensive work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support and the great photo! FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Lusotitan[edit]

Didn't initially think I'd be able to contribute much, but I decided to run it over anyway and found some things:

Good to see you have a go at it! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pachyrostra is listed as a subtribe in the taxobox, but to my knowledge it's a clade not corresponding to any rank, similar to Brachyrostra - the body of the article supports this. Now, this'd obviously be the fault of the taxonomy template, but it's still something relevant that'd need fixing if I'm right (seeming supported here [6]). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree, but this is beyond the limits of this particular article.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and changed in on the taxonomy template for Pachyrostra, although it's still not displaying as a clade in the taxoboxes. If I'm remembering right that can take a few minutes though, so maybe it's resolved? Anyway, I agree it's not relevant to this nomination in particular. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not super knowledgeable on how these templates work, so maybe I'm describing something that couldn't happen, but I feel it seems redundant having both Pachyrostra and Pachyrhinosaurini in the taxobox, especially when Centrosaurinae isn't. Is there any way to make it display Pachyrostra (which re-directs to Pachyrhinosaurini anyway...) and Centrosaurinae instead? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If we abandon the automatic taxobox. But someone will then soon restore it... The entire taxobox system is of course a total mess, unable to be validly sourced and OR. As these ranks are meaningless anyway, the taxobox is best ignored.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and swapped the "always display" tag on the taxonomy template for Pachyrhinosaurini and Centrosaurinae; I don't think this should have any adverse effects on the non-pachyrostran's taxoboxes, but I'll see. Again, it's not immediately displaying. Anyway, yeah, also irrelevant for nomation. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope for the best ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this locality, Gilmore had employed George Fryer Sternberg to excavate skeletons of the horned dinosaurs Brachyceratops and Styracosaurus ovatus. – I think a note in parentheses the latter taxon would later be named Rubeosaurus should be added. On its own I think'd be nice but largely unecessary; however, Rubeosaurus as a taxon is referenced later in the same paragraph, with the reader having no reason to think these are the same animal unless they had followed the links. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is now made explicit that Rubeosaurus is Styracosaurus ovatus.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that matter, the paragraph comments two specimens would later be named Einiosaurus and assigned to Rubeosaurus; would this not, however, fall under the "Interpretations of the fossils" section? Perhaps establishing it in this initial section would lead to less confusion, but in that case, shouldn't MOR 485 be noted as later being named Achelousaurus in the following paragraph? I'd personally lean towards not mentioning names until the next section, but I think either way a change is needed for consistency IMO. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the "Interpretation of the fossils" section covers a phase before the formal naming of Einiosaurus. Normally, in a Discovery & Naming chapter you first list the discoveries and then relate the naming acts. It's redundant to state of each specimen: "This is of Taxon X". Here, it's no different. In this case, the situation is more complex because Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus material was found also. So we make clear from the outset which fossils belong to these. By default, the others are of Achelousaurus. Of course, not explicitly indicating Achelousaurus at this point generates an expectation. Which is then abundantly met in the subsequent sections.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He still thought that the fossil material had been part of a single population but concluded that this had developed over time as a chronospecies evolving into a series of subsequent taxa. – perhaps a note in parentheses about what a chronospecies is? Then again, the tail end of the sentence might sufficiently do that already. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with your last observation :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This puts it in the same size-range as other members of the Centrosaurinae subgroup of ceratopsians that lived during the Campanian age. – the larger end of the relevant Pachyrhinosaurus surpassed this by a couple metres, so I'm not sure if this statement is entirely valid. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what the source says. You have to read it literally: Achelousaurus is neither the smallest centrosaurine known, nor the largest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horner however, noted that the newer forms often had a strong similarity to the previous types. – there should be a comma after "Horner". Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further indication was the failure to identify true autapomorphies – unique traits that prove a taxon is a separate species. The fossils instead showed a gradual change from basal (or ancestral) into more derived characters. – some of this might go on the source, but I find this statement very confusing. How are there a lack of autopomorphies when we've based over a half-dozen species (counting the multiple Pachyrhinosaurus species) on them? Within the claim of anagenesis, there is indeed a gradual change, but they still obviously cluster (as seen with the multiple specimens of Achelousaurus nobody disputes group together). If this is merely describing how Horner viewed things, that should be made more clear. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The horned dinosaurs discovered by Horner exemplified this phenomenon. – this obviously implies the last paragraph was talking about the dinosaurs of the time in general, but the last paragraph never clearly established if the phenomenon was restricted to ceratopsids or not. Of course I know the claim extends to other groups, but most readers won't. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This should have been made clear by talking about "animal communities", "animal types", "newer forms", "various types" and a "fauna". Should there still be an ambiguity, this will be destroyed by the sentence you cite, which indeed carries a strong implication!--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orbital horns showed coarse ridges. Today, "Taxon A" has been named Rubeosaurus,[9] "Taxon B" has become Einiosaurus, while "Taxon C" is Achelousaurus – does this need to be re-stated again, when the point of the history section was to establish this already? Also, why is the naming of Rubeosaurus given a reference but not the other two? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Most readers will not clearly remember the history section at this point :o). The reference does not proof the naming but warns that the reference has been doubted. We talked about this earlier.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm merely ignorant, but is there a reason MOR 456 8-8-87-1 has to be used over merely MOR 456? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The jaw has its own subnumber, so we best mention it. Also indicates the precise excavation date, which might be of interest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O, dear, I confused this with another issue. The number 456 8-8-87-1 is mentioned by the source. As I understand matters, a lot of the material has in the 1980s been imprecisely catalogued, with the result that MOR 456 represents several individuals.--MWAK (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2010, Gregory S. Paul renamed Achelousaurus "Centrosaurus horneri". – I think this'd read better if it said either that he sunk the genus into Centrosaurus or re-assigned the species, rather than "renamed" it. I'd learn towards the latter personally, but either woudl be an improvement. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Synonymized" would probably be the most accurate way to describe it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is the added problem that the statement has to be true both on the generic and the specific level. Perhaps "assigned Achelousaurus to the genus Centrosaurus as a Centrosaurus horneri"?--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should rather be "assigned A. horneri to the genus Centrosaurus, as C. horneri"? I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sampson felt, in 1995, that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Achelousaurus was a direct descendant of Einiosaurus. – this seems important to note in the anagensis section, even if it's just a brief sentence somewhere. That said, the latter half of the paragraph isn't even relevant to phylogeny anyway, so I think the whole thing could be lifted and put into the anagenesis section, before the paragraph on Dodson's objections. The word "subsequent" would merely need to be removed from what is now the second paragraph in the Phylogeny section for it to function perfectly fine as the first paragraph, with the former one moved up. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the first sentence is about anagenesis but only by referring to a rejection by Sampson of the hypothesis, who then chose for the phylogenetic method. So, the sentence fits perfectly within the phylogeny topic, while serving as an elegant introduction of it, meanwhile providing a connection with the first chapter section to ensure the narrative coherence of the chapter as a whole. This way we make a nice contrast between "anagenesis" and "cladogenesis". Such considerations should override the objection that not everything is perfectly covered by the section title :o). The speciation in the second half of the paragraph has again a clear connection with phylogeny. Also, the entire second paragraph is about research either confirming or refuting Sampson's tree, so his results should precede them immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair on the paragraph as a whole, but a lack of mention of Samson's disagreement in the anagenesis section seems odd as its directly relevant to the topic. One sentence could easily be thrown in somewhere, and merely have this fact be mentioned twice, once in each section, seeing it's relevant and needed in both. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now split the paragraph, as you suggested.--MWAK (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Campanian, there seems to have been a trend of pachyrostrans replacing other centrosaurines. – this seems oddly out of place in the middle of a paragraph in the Phylogeny section. Could it fit into the Paleoecology section somewhere?
Well, the paragraph is about the relevance of Achelousaurus within somewhat larger groups. Given that we now know Achelousaurus to have been among the first members of a newly coined clade Pachyrostra, this fact gains some importance by realising that this clade would ultimately dominate the centrosaurine tree. Such trends, though obviously having been caused by some ecological phenomenon, are usually treated within a phylogenetic context. Our Paleoecology section is focused on the ecology of Achelousaurus itself. If we find a source about the ecology driving Pachyrhinosaurus evolution while explicitly referring to Achelousaurus, this should change, of course.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus, this included Sinoceratops and Wendiceratops, according to the 2012 analysis.[58] – reference 58 makes no mention of Sinoceratops, and is from three years before Wendiceratops would even be named.
Ouch, that should have been Xenoceratops. And the reference is incorrect as well. I'll repair this immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceratopsid skull casts positioned in a phylogenetic tree, in the Natural History Museum of Utah, with Achelousaurus at number 03 – would it be to clunky to instead say that it's the third from the left on the top row? I can barely read some of the numbers when I enlarge the image, nevermind look at it normally. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Ill see if I can figure out to reword it... FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added something perhaps even wordier to make it clear... FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jens has now added an image with more resolution.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, that looks amazing! FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these was a form in-between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus;[23] in 1994 he would name it Hypacrosaurus stebingeri. – there should probably be a note that this hasn't really been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Anagenesis is indeed largely rejected here, I believe, and a rejection can easily be sourced.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source added.--MWAK (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1992 he named Prosaurolophus blackfeetensis,[72] that later would be seen as identical to Prosaurolophus maximus. – its presence in the paragraph implies this was also a case of anagenesis, but this isn't stated (and wasn't, to my knowledge, the case, but I could well be wrong). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I at first assumed Horner would have proposed an anagenetic relationship here too, couldn't find this and then still kept it, as it was part of the fauna anyway and named by Horner. Sloppy writing. I'll restructure this.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the most convenient thing would be to omit it entirely.--MWAK (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, Horner thought there was a taxon present that was transitional between Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. – a note that this has since been named would probably be in order, however noting the connection to Tyrannosaurus hasn't been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Another loose end. Of course Daspletosaurus horneri should have been mentioned, the paper after all suggesting anagenesis with D. torosus but not with Tyrannosaurus, but I kept postponing this as I wanted to study the article more carefully. That's not a valid excuse, obviously, so I'll remedy that.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phylogenetic analyses have varied in the closeness of the relationship between Achelousaurus and Styracosaurus, here at the American Museum of Natural History – to me at least, "here at the AMNH" would be used when you are presently located at the institution and are talking about it. What about "seen at AMNH" or something? Lusotitan 21:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Or "shown in an exhibit at the AMNH". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about just "; here, a skull at the American Museum of Natural History"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added that, any further thoughts, Lusotitan? FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely acceptable, but on second thought, wouldn't it make more sense to first state that it's image of an Styracosaurus skull at the AMNH, then afterwords talk about the important of this in relation to Achelousaurus, instead of the other way around like it is now? Lusotitan 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, the other captions are inconsistent in how they order it, so I'm not sure if it's a big deal, as long as it is clear... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only two remaining issues are the lack of a mention of Sampson being opposed to the anagenesis hypothesis in the anagenensis section, and the fourth paragraph of the palaeoecology section still not mentioning the other anagenesis hypothesises brought up haven't gotten support either, or that D. horneri has been named. Elsewhere on this page it has been said (independently) all three of these things would be added, but they still haven't been. Lusotitan 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
At last, these issues have been dealt with.--MWAK (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my minor quibbles have been dealt with and I see no problems with the thorough and well written article. Lusotitan 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your first FAC review, I believe! FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I realise that RileyBugz never returned to this review, but had, I think, reviewed most of it without issue. With the other supports, I'm happy to promote this now but if RileyBugz has any issues with the last section, I'm sure they can be raised on the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Achelousaurus/archive1&oldid=1049521846"