Talk:Phosphatodraco/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

You should spell out the cervical vertebrae are in the neck in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already is? "consisting of five cervical (neck) vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to convert to ftin rather than just ft or just in Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. I use metrics myself too.

"the first preserved vertebra" I thought this meant C1/C1+C2 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it could be clearer in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauretania only refers to the Roman provinces Mauretania Caesariensis, Mauretania Tingitana, and Mauretania Sitifensis in the northwestern African Mediterranean coast (and for a short time, the southern Spanish coast), not all of North Africa Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all the source says, we can't really change their etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you wikilink Rabat but not Casablanca? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked under first paragraph, "(OCP, located in Casablanca)", FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"called the issue 'controversial' " seems unnecessary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite important for the context, as it shows they refrained from taking sides. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's implied when they say it's impossible to choose one side or the other because the remains are too fragmentary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Description you put parentheses next to a convert template, so it displays as two parentheticals right next to each other Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Characteristics of azhdarchid cervical vertebrae.png has the incorrect license listed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PeerJ says "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah CC-BY, the Commons says it's CC-BY-SA Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked those from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Size disparity of late Maastrichtian pterosaurs and birds.svg Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ones from that journal. One problem is that the Plos template on Commons gives an outdated licence:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, I still need to explain some anatomical terms, but otherwise should be ready for a look-over. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The following C7 vertebra (Kellner's C6[7]) is shown in bottom view" are you referring to a picture? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola and colleagues, which is shown in hind view" I think these kinds of things would go better in the caption Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They expressed hope that their study would inspire more research into the lifestyle of azhdarchids besides just their flight capability." I don't get why this is necessary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]