Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apatosaurus/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Apatosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 28 Marsh 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the best known sauropods, often known as Brontosaurus in popular culture. Four species are known, and this genus has undergone major revisions in the past. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and recently passed a GA review. The appearance of this dinosaur has stayed relatively stable, with only the head changing greatly since it was described. Many images can be found of two of the species, while the others are only known from one or two skeletons. IJReid ^discuss 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:Support: This is my first time reviewing a Featured Article, so take everything with a grain of salt:

The "Paleobiology" section is the largest section of the article, but the lead is dominated by a summary of the "Description" section. Also, the lead section does not discuss the "In popular culture" section. (except perhaps the brief phrase saying it was once classified as Brontosaurus ).

I believe there is reasoning for this. The popular culture section is actually the least important section (in my opinion no articles should have them) and most mentions in it are of the common occurrences of "Brontosaurus" in popular books and movies. Most pop-culture info is not truly accurate, and therefore does not need mention in the lead. I will add more paleobiology info, just know that paleobiology is all assumptions based on description, which is why the latter is more important. IJReid ^discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added paleobiology info to lead. IJReid ^discuss 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention of cultural impact would be in order, the intro is supposed to summarise the entire article, after all. "Brontosaurus" has had more of a cultural impact than most other dinosaurs, probably only surpassed by Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements are confusing:

"Among the species is A. excelsus, long considered to be separate under the genus Brontosaurus" I know it is saying that it was considered to be part of a separate genus, named Brontosaurus, but it was hard to process at first.

Reworded. IJReid ^discuss 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus to stop growing at 70 years of age, growing 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year." it almost sounds like this is saying that it grows 520kg/year after stopping growing, which doesn't make sense. In context of the previous sentences, this makes more sense, but perhaps it should be more clear that it is growing 520kg/year on average until 70.

Corrected.

~~Which is the reference for the origin of A. louisae's name? The nearby references are not freely available, and their titles do not suggest they would contain this information.~~

Holland 1916 (http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=referenceInfo&reference_no=53213). Not the full reference, which I cannot find online. The best one is probably Gilmore (1936), which is cited in the article and is on A. louisae. The etymology is found in Parsons (199-), cited in the article. IJReid ^discuss 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Importance of Morrison formation is not described. From the writing, it could be one place where Apatosaurus has been found, or the only place.~~

I am confused. In the first paragraph of Discovery it mentions it was the formation of the Bone Wars, and the wording in the lead seems to be clear. IJReid ^discuss 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My real question is, have Apatosaurus fossils been found anywhere besides the Morrison formation? It seems from the lead that this is true, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the article. It seems like one of the preexisting references would mention this fact. If I have again missed an important detail, let me know.Brirush (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added in Discovery. IJReid ^discuss 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks on reference style and image attribution seemed fine for criteria 2,3.

Besides above comments, all of criteria 1 (well-written, well-researched, etc.) and 4 (length) seem satisfied.

Brirush (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, just let it be known that the article is not completely done with corrections and changes. IJReid ^discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, I enjoyed reading that, just a few comments and queries:

There are various terms that could do with wikilinking or perhaps even replacing with more common terms manus coosified and Rugosities for starters. Is coosified a typo or rare variant of co-ossified?

I believe that this is fixed. I think that coosified was a spelling error, but I'm not certain. IJReid ^discuss 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Many of the dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation are the same genera as those seen in Portuguese rocks of the Lourinha Formation (mainly Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Torvosaurus, and Apatosaurus)" I see this as contradicting "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation."

Fixed, Apatosaurus is not present but has a close counterpart. IJReid ^discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add something about reproduction? Even if only that scientists assume they reproduced by laying eggs but haven't yet found any eggs they can be sure are from apatosaurus.

I added info on the juvenile Apatosaurus specimens known. IJReid ^discuss 22:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind checking "Trackways of Apatosaurus and other sauropods show that they walked an average of 30–40 km (19–25 mi) per day. A study found that they might have been able to walk 20–30 km (12–19 mi) per hour.[6] The slow locomotion of sauropods may be due to the minimal muscling or recoil after strides", I'd like to know how they can work out how far these things could walk in a day from a few tracks, especially if they are saying that they walked fast enough to do their daily travel in 90 minutes. Also if you are quoting that as slow walking speed it might be an idea to include a comparator, it is not slow compared to my walking speed.

I think I have fixed this. IJReid ^discuss 02:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, that works for me. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.... Thanks for writing this and bringing it to FAC Ϣere SpielChequers 12:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping LittleJerry for these last two, as he was the one that did most of the paleobiology work. IJReid ^discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something has been published about the juvenile specimen(s)? I'm pretty sure no eggs are known, and it would probably be hard to find a source stating that Apatosaurus specifically laid eggs, as this is assumed for all dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that nominating this article is a bad idea given the recent claims that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are in fact two different species. It looks like the paleontological community is about to revise the classification of the whole of the Diplodocidae clade with Elosaurus and Eobrontosaurus being reclassified as Brontosaurs. Whatever emerges as a result of the new morphological study, this article should reflect the latest findings. My knowledge of dinosaurs is limited to reading books about them when I was a kid so perhaps an expert in this field should consider, at the very least commenting on the latest finding, or even removing the Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus redirect and start a new page for Brontosaurus. See http://motherboard.vice.com/read/inner-children-rejoice-there-is-probably-a-brontosaurus-after-all and https://peerj.com/articles/857/

They have always been considered separate species, this study revives Brontosaurus as a separate genus. See discussion here[2], it is too preliminary to split the articles, as this is only one study (it is very possible that other studies will have different results), so we should wait for a scientific consensus. But the finding should certainly be addressed by this article. But even if this was split, it wouldn't be too bad, mainly the history and popular culture sections would be affected. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoguy2 has done a good job at splitting the two articles, so the reviewers (Brirush, WereSpielChequers) may want to take a look at the article again to see if they still think it flows. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I'm a little tied up in real life at present, so it could be a while before that happens. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely alright, I guess this FAC will stay open for a while, so no rush. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not this long, I'm afraid -- things seem to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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