Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nasutoceratops/archive1

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2024 [1].

---

Nasutoceratops

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This aticle is about a ceratopsian dinosaur which is unusual for its large snout and similarity to a Texas Longhorn. This is perhaps also why it has gained a bit of fame recently by being featured in the Jurassic World franchise. Everything published about it should be summarised here, and luckily there are a lot of nice, free images available. Note that a Master's thesis (Ridgwell) that was also used in the FA Kosmoceratops is included here for comprehensiveness, as it does not present controversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

HF - support

Will review later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Specimens were discovered in Utah in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from 2006 onwards," - it seems odd to put this in the past tense, as there's nothing that would prevent new specimens from being collected in the future

Changed to "The first known specimens". FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• " including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls. In 2013, the adult was made the holotype of the new genus" - I'm assuming "the adult" is one of the two partial skulls, but it might not hurt to clean up the phrasing here a bit

Well-spotted, it refers to the same subadult as the former sentence, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, associated, and nearly complete skull that preserves most of the skull roof. The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." - but the lead says the holotype is an adult specimen

Yep, fixed per above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is an epiparietal a type of epiossification?

Yes, I've now presented the different types of epiossifications by name in the first paragraph under description. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move the link for neoceraptosians up to the first mention

Done. Unfortunately it doesn't have a separate article from Ceratopsia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Since the holotype was not fully grown, it is possible such hooks would have developed as it matured, but this is considered unlikely due to the fusion of its epiparietals on the frill and fusion of other bones related to maturity" - does the descriptions of the adult skulls shed any light on this matter?

Unfortunately they don't preserve that part (what they do preserve is listed under discovery). FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "In 2018, Dalman and colleagues found the specimen from New Mexico" - for reader clarity, I would recommend mentioning upfront that this is the Menefeeceratpos specimen

Good idea, I changed to "the specimen that was later named Menefeeceratops" to make clear it wasn't named by the time the statement was made. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

AryKun

• "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.

Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[2] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.

Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.

Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "76.0-75.5 million years ago" en-dash and maybe link million years ago?

Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Will add some more comments later. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi AryKun, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks nice, but I don't think I've read through it deeply enough to have an opinion either way. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "and the collaborative effort has been called the Kaiparowits Basin Project": seems rather hesitant wording; could this be just "and the collaborative effort is known as the Kaiparowits Basin Project"? Or is it the case that this isn't any sort of official name?

Changed, yeah, it's called this in most sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Among the discoveries made were three new ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) taxa": if the project is still going on, I'd make this "that have been made", and shouldn't it be "are", not "were"? They were discovered, but they are taxa.

Took your suggestions. I meant "were" as in they "were among the discoveries", but not sure if that's unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a link available for "air scribe"? Or could it be redlinked? Maybe an entry in Glossary of sculpting, if my Googling hasn't led me astray.

Redlinked, but I think it's a more specialized tool:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "based on fusion of skull elements": I haven't looked at the source, but would this be better as "based on the degree of fusion of"? I assume it is less completely fused than an adult skull would be.

Yeah, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "right hindlimb without hand bones": is it customary to use "hand" for a hind limb?

Yikes, no, it should have been forelimb, not sure how that happened, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, which is unique for ceratopsians": perhaps "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, more than in any other ceratopsian"?

Went with "more than in other ceratopsians", the source doesn't specifically say it's more than in any other, but I assume that's what's meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "snout-region": I don't think this should be hyphenated unless I'm missing some nuance of meaning (or it's hyphenated in the sources).

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The nasal bones had well-developed internal cavities behind the horn, which suggests they were hollow": I think it should be "have", not "had", though "were hollow" seems right as I assume we don't have currently existing examples of complete nasal bones.

Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "The brow horns of Nasutoceratops also differed from those of other ceratopsids": should be "differ"? I assume the rule being followed is to use the past tense when speaking of the ceratopsids as animals, but present tense when speaking of their specific anatomical characteristics as known from fossil evidence.

Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "being convex across from side to side": "across" seems redundant.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting "The scapula" has "typical of ceratopsids" four times in the last four sentences. Would it be possible to replace these with a sentence at the end of the paragraph saying something like "These characteristics of the humerus, ulna, and radius are typical of all ceratopsids"?

As the "typical of" does not necessarily refer to all the features of these bones listed, I've tried by instead using different wording and taking one instance out, if that is any better. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "narial" to nostril.

Glossed with "(bony nostril)" instead, as nostril is a pretty common term. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just checking that there is intentionally no mention of MOR 692 (which is in the cladogram) in the body text -- I know nothing about it, but there's considerable discussion of related taxa and specimens so I thought this might be an omission.

I originally went into this, but cut it as maybe unnecessary and confusing because it's only known by specimen number. I've re-added the cut text now now, which also discusses other unnamed specimens, perhaps a bit of a mouthful: "These authors named this new clade Nasutoceratopsini, with Nasutoceratops as the type genus; this group was defined as all centrosaurines more closely related to Nasutoceratops than to Centrosaurus, containing Nasutoceratops, Avaceratops, MOR 692 (previously treated as an adult Avaceratops), CMN 8804, and another undescribed ceratopsian (specimen GPDM 63) from Malta, Montana." FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• "they only became common in the Early Cretaceous": suggest "angiosperms only became common in the Early Cretaceous".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• "which ranges 200–350 m (656.2–1,148.3 ft)": what do these distances refer to?

That should be depth, I've added "relative depth", but perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm if this is the right terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that should be "in thickness"; you could even link to the article Thickness (geology). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, added that instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Rivers flowed generally west across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway": surely they flowed east, given the geography?

I can see what you're getting at, but this is what the source says: "The Kaiparowits Formation was dominated by an array of continental depositional environments, with large, deep fluvial channels supported by stable banks. Rivers flowed generally west across the alluvial–coastal plain, draining into the retreating Western Interior Seaway. The floodplains to these large channels were dominated by long-lived perennial ponds, wetlands, and lakes. The nearly ubiquitous nature of large aquatic mollusks, coupled with the abundance of aquatic vertebrates (Gates et al., 2010) and plants (Miller et al., this volume) in many overbank units, testifies to the wet nature of this alluvial system and the persistence of standing water deposits." I'm not entirely sure how this adds up, so pinging Jens Lallensack again (an actual palaeontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Jens says. I'd almost be inclined to drop the reference to the direction as it seems so implausible I wonder if it's a typo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think it's just a typo. No way the rivers were flowing west. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I tried with the following by removing reference to direction, if that looks ok: "Rivers flowed across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That works. If you contact the authors they might issue an erratum; I've seen that done a couple of times and then you could cite that. But it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all minor points. I know little about the subject but the article is in excellent shape as far as I can tell, though I'm not competent to review the detailed skeletal discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful observations, all should now be addressed (but see last uncertain answer). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wolverine XI

Will look more into this. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait; reviewing now. Note the underlined words.

• In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown, but suggested that the may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians. The sentence seems long, and would benefit from splitting.

Tried with semicolon for better flow: "In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown; they suggested these may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians." FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• In a 2017 Master's thesis, the paleontologist Nicole Marie Ridgwell Not idiomatic

Different reviewers always have different opinions on this, but the important thing is that an article is internally ocnsistent. In this case, "the" is used throughout, so shouldn't be different in a single instance. Both forms are correct. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See also current discussion about this here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sampson and colleagues stated in 2013 that while various hypotheses about the function of ceratopsid skull ornamentation have been proposed, the consensus at the time was use<--

I'm not sure what this is trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pointing at the word use. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So are you suggesting something like "was as use in" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I feel like it should be "its use in" as that makes much more sense. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a well-written article with a few corrections needed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. #7 doesn't have a complete date. Regarding #9, theses are seldom good sources but I see that this one's been cited a few time so it might pass. Does the news coverage really require 5 sources? Some sources seem to link to the PMC and DOI links twice. #26 is also a thesis, but not cited anywhere, which makes it a bit iffy as a source. Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• For ref 7, I assume you mean that the year isn't in parenthesis like the other citations? I have no idea how that happened, I can't find any difference in the formatting of that and the other citations? Pinging J JMesserly, who has helped with citation formatting before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  That and the article has a day and a month. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think ref 8 is the outlier in how the access date is formatted? None of them have other than year as the publication date. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User-duck, who also works on citations, if they know where the parenthesis went. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a very good article at first look. Guidlines:

1. Use templates and let them do the formatting. Parens only appear if there is an author/editor specified.
2. News articles and web posts should have the complete publication date. Do not omit authors.

Yes, ref 7 is a little unusual but deserves a better cite. I will do one this evening (about 11 hours). It will be my opinion and feel free to change it.

P.S. Decide on a date format and add {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template to document it. Thanks for asking, User-duck (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that, I had no idea the parenthesis wouldn't show up around the date if there was no author field. I've also added full dates for the other news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• As for 9, all it does it say he used another name for his thesis version of the description, which shouldn't be controversial. Same with the theses used for 26 and 33, they don't provide any controversial information (one just lists fossils from the formation, the other reports on fossil dung).
• As for all the news sources, I use several because they're used to support a wider statement about how the discovery was reported, which would hardly make sense with fewer citations: "the large nose of the dinosaur was emphasized... This was reflected in news outlets", with the examples cited.

Image review - failpass

• File:Nasutoceratops UDL.png: While not wishing to question UnexpectedDinoLesson's credentials, what leads you to believe that they are a HQ RS?

The image has had a very detailed review here[5], where it has been cross-checked with all available sources (cited on Commons). FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• File:Kaiparowits Formation swamp.jpg and File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg: Similarly.

These match the inferred environment and published figures of the fossils (as listed in the Commons description). You can see if such images have been listed for WP:dinoart review under their links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by "links". If either has been listed, could you give me the links to the discussions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if you scroll down on an image page, you can see everywhere it has been used across all Wikipedias. Here's the section where one of the images was reviewed[6], and here's the section with the other.[7] Note I had heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources, and the second one was pretty accurate, so they did not get many comments at the reviews. Reviewers mainly comment when something is wrong, so if they don't, nothing has been identified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Two follow up queries.

• If you have "heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources" should your name and that of the sources not be in the image Summary?
• Are all details of Nasutoceratops in the images clearly supported by a consensus of the HQ RSs? I am particularly thinking of the colouration and the false eyes in the upper neck frill, but their may be others. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the description field, as for crediting myself, I think that would be too much, it's made clear in the upload summary that I've modified them either way, I don't really feel like it warrants listing me as author. As for colouration and markings, we don't know for the species depicted here (we do know from a handful others, though), but it has been generally suggested that the ornamentation of dinosaurs could have been colourful and bold in life, as it is in modern animals. But it's such a general idea and repeated in most sources about that subject that I wonder if it makes sense listing any particular citation for that? Here are two sources mentioning colour in relation to dinosaur display off the top of my head:[8][9] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to colouration and patterning being informed but conjectural. However, there is the risk of a reader taking it at face value. Perhaps the two group images could have 'colouration is conjectural' or similar added to their captions? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is a given, and not really how the sources (or even popular works) would treat such an image, so I'm a bit wary of it (would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long). It is usually the other way around in relevant sources and other articles; if colouration is known, it is noted in the captions (as in for example Microraptor and Tylosaurus). As for those eye spots specifically, ceratopsian dinosaurs are not uncommonly depicted with them, here by Gregory S. Paul[10] and Mark Witton.[11] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not really how Wikipedia works. If we say or portray something it is because we have a solid source which states it is a fact and we refer to that source. If no source states something, we don't mention it. I don't see how "Anything you see or read may just be a guess, but we will let you know if there happens to be something we are sure about in there" is compatible with a Wikipedia article, much less one at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but it goes both ways; an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources or by other encyclopaedias, not in an original way. And you usually just don't see either with captions like that (saying depicted colouration is conjectural or even addressing colouration if it isn't because it is actually known), so there are no published sources to use as precedent. To take some example, Britannica's article about the related Pachyrhinosaurus:[12] The original Nasutoceratops press release intended for general audiences with a bare-bones image caption:[13] National Geographic'scoverage of the dinosaur:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we do lots of things differently here. Is there any reason in policy or the MoS why we should follow the sources in this? Or policy support for "an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources"?

I am unconvinced by the "would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long" argument. Currently the article includes captions 178 and 317 characters long (including spaces). Adding the 28 characters of my suggestion would make the two captions affected 126 and 113 characters long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware this is not the case on any of the other Dinosauria-related FA's with life reconstructions. If necessary, perhaps just adding 'colouration subjective' at the end of the caption could work. If it is a requirement, we should at the very least employ this unilaterally across all dinosaur FA's, maybe even all FA's on extinct animals. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the overly long captions is the main argument (though I personally find it unappealing), but rather the lack of published precedent in relevant sources. I do think such information could maybe make sense as part of the alt-text, which is concerned about the visual side of an image. Could that be a compromise? But yeah, if this really is an issue, it should be brought up at a more general venue rather than in a specific article, since we literally have thousands of articles with the same issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue. I am entirely open to being persuaded that we are not telling readers something not supported by HQ RSs - in the two specific cases in this FAC. I don't think that "but it's that way in other articles" is going to convince me. And has this has, to my surprise, become an "issue" I am formally recusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not about following other Wikipedia articles, but about following the published literature we base our articles on. The reason why I mention other Wikipedia articles is just that if we create a new precedent here, it should be followed everywhere else on Wikipedia, hence it would need a wider discussion to see if there is really support for this. I'm totally open for that if we believe the issue is serious enough for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy. If not, state so in the article and I'm happy. Or come up with a policy based reason why things are fine as they are. Barring any of those I don't see how I can support the use of either of those images in an FAC. Everything else is fine and the closing @FAC coordinators: may disagree with my approach regarding this, narrow issue. I am not over-fussed one way or the other what other editors support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think we have differing interpretations of the rules then (me emphasising that we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject). I'll bring it up at a more general venue at some point, faster if more people find it an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we do have "differing interpretations". The first thing I wrote in my summary of my position was "If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy." What do you consider to be the difference between that and "we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Because no sources exist that give such a rationale for depictions of particular species because there is no fossil evidence to base it on, they only give very general pointers, and generally no comment is made on the colouration shown in image captions. Going beyond that isn't possible with existing sources, except for the very rare cases where colouration has been preserved in the fossils, but that is not the case for the animals depicted here. As I mentioned above, some notable palaeontological artists have shown such spots, but entirely without comment, so while there is published visual precedence for it, there is nothing in the captions for these images that can be cited in support. Gregory S. Paul had this general statement, for example: "Archosaurs of all sizes may have used specific color displays for intraspecific communication or for startling predators. Crests, frills, skin folds, and taller neural spines would be natural bases for vivid, even iridescent, display colors, especially in the breeding season." A citation to something like that could be added to the Commons description, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, I'll start a discussion about this at a more general venue, as it's a general issue not restricted to this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Added "hypothetical life restoration" to all restoration captions, per the discussion here:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Caption "The Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared with the swamplands of Louisiana." Perhaps 'The swamplands of Louisiana, with which the Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared'?

Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Make File:Ceratopsia skin integument.png larger.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Alt text is missing from most but not all images.

Added to rest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (comments)

I don't know if I'll be able to commit to a full review, but I'll make a few suggestions.

I know WP:ALT is not a WP:FACR, and I do appreciate that all the images here do at least have alts, but I can't help feeling some of them could be improved. For example, File:Ceratopsidae Scale.svg. The image itself complies with WP:FIDUCIAL by including the silhouette of a human, but the alt text just teases our screen-reader users by not actaully telling them how that human compares to the dinosaurs. Even adding something as simple as "The tallest, Triceratops prorsus, is about twice as tall and the shortest, Nasutoceratops titusi, is about the same height" would add useful context. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think most people feel particularly comfortable doing these, tried with something along your lines for that image. Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Morrison Man - support

Seeing as this review seems to be missing a third reviewer, I'll provide some comments in a bit. Just marking my spot. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, finally got around to reading through the whole thing. A few notes:

Lead

• “including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls” - maybe clarify that these skulls do not belong to the partial skeleton, something like “two other partial skulls”.

Added "other". FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “and may have formed a distinct clade within this group” - Isn’t Nasutoceratopsini well-established at this point? If so, may have can be removed here.

It has recently been put into question, see latter part of classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have missed this one when I was looking over my list at the end! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the deep front of skull” - the deep front of the skull.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discovery and naming

• “the paleotologist Alan L. Titus” - Fix typo.

Yikes, done. How did no one before spot that? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “which formed much of the upper jaw” - Would this not fit better in present tense? ‘which form much of the upper jaw’.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Description

• “that lined the margins of the neck frill [...] and on the cheeks” - I’d swap lined out for something like were present on, to make sure that first part matches up with the mention of the cheek ossifications.

Went with "on the". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “as is typical of ceratopids” - Fix typo.

Fixed, but note "ceratopid" is a valid alternate form! FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Did not know this, interesting! Though I do believe that using ceratopsid is the right way to go to avoid reader confusion.The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, an article should of course be internally consistent (and ceratopsid is way more common). FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “A maxillary flange at the front” - Considering the extensive explaining of anatomical terms, would an explanation for maxillary flange also be useful here?

Can't really find anything about this other than it's an, uh, flange, but tried to make it clearer that it's on the front of the maxilla: "The maxillary flange at the front of the maxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• “a somewhat raised teardrop-shaped expansion” - Comma in between raised and teardrop-shaped?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “hour-glass shape” - No hyphen needed.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “without torsion. The postorbital bone” - It would make more sense to me structure-wise if this new section starts a line down from the ending of the skull section.

You mean as a new paragraph? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• “trihedral” - Would a link be possible here?

No article to link, but added "(with three plane faces meeting at the same point)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “in for example Avaceratops” - Going a bit off of personal preference, I’d change this to in taxa like Avaceratops.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “The epiparietals are low, roughly crescent-shaped, asymmetrical and wedge-shaped” - What is the purpose of naming two types of shape here? 2d/3d?

Removed "wedge-shaped" as crescent-shaped is mainly emphasised by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the back if the skull” - Fix typo.

Fixed, dammit... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “pavement tubercles” - Perhaps this could be explained?

Added explanation taken from a paper on hadrosaurs "(smooth, polygonal scales forming clusters)", but it seems to conflict or overlap with the description that's already there. Pinging Jens Lallensack who wrote about the hadrosaur mummies for advice, he may be more familiar with it. We should really have an article where dinosaur scale terminology is explained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060#Skin; combined with the picture, I hope it makes the meaning of the term clear. The term was, I think, coined by Osborn in 1912; he called them "pavement tubercles" because they are raised above the smaller "ground tubercles" in-between the clusters. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, would "(clusters formed by raised scales)" work? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No, "pavement tubercles" are the individual scales, not the clusters. However, it looks like there is no evidence for such clusters in Nasutoceratops in the first place? As far as I see, Lund and colleagues seem to be the only ones who used "pavement tubercle" outside of the context of hadrosaurs. So I wonder if they had a different meaning in mind, or simply were sloppy with the terminology. Given that we are not sure what they mean here, maybe it would be best to just remove the term (and its explanation)? Maybe simply Patches A and B have variably sized scales that are round to elliptical and are arranged in irregular rows, similar to what is known from other ceratopsians (including Psittacosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Could be a solution, but what to do about the following sentence? "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of round, ossicle-like scales surrounded by pavement tubercles, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See this image: [16]. You see the normal, polygonal scales that Lund et al. call "pavement tubercles", as well as large, circular scales in-between. Maybe just write "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of single circular scales much larger than the scales surrounding them, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Jens Lallensack, implemented your wording now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider this fixed then. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Classification

• “(including one that was previously considered an adult Avaceratops)” - Is this the same specimen as MOR 692, which you mentioned above? If so this second mention could probably be removed.

Yes, seems this happened when I copied an earlier deleted sentence in again. Removed that part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “Dalman colleagues accompanying” - Should be Dalman and colleagues.

You're noticing a lot of bizarre mistakes everyone else missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly, yeah. Happens to the best of us! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “Judith River Formation close to Nasutoceratops” - I’d change this towards ‘to be close to’ or ‘to be closely related to’, just for extra clarity.

Went with the former. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “of north and south of Laramidia” - Change this to either ‘of the north and south of Laramidia’ or ‘of northern and southern Laramidia’.

Took the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “the northern centroaurines” - Fix typo.

Oof, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “north and south Laramidia” (x2) - I’d once again change these to northern and southern. It’s up to preference but I think it reads nicer.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “latitutudinally distributed” - Fix typo.

Ugh, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “found that this genus and other basal centrosaurines [...] to have lived” - Remove ‘that’ to fix sentence structure.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “fossil evidence indicated” - Should this not be present? ‘fossil evidence indicates’.

Changed, though since it is a past occurrence, I think past tense could work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Paleobiology

• “suggested that the may” - Fix typo.

I'm not seeing this, perhaps sopmething that has been fixed since? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed in another edit, yeah. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “(rarest of the three groups)” - Should there be an extra ‘the’ in front of rarest?

Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Paleoenvironment

• “were dominated by up to 30 m (98 ft) cypress trees” - Maybe change to ‘were dominated by cypress trees of up to 30 m (98 ft) tall’.

Went with "dominated by cypress trees up to 30 m (98 ft) tall" for this and the below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Works fine! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “up to 10–20 m (33–66 ft) dicot trees” - Same as for the above comment. Maybe swap height around to the back and add ‘tall’.

As above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “by conifers up to 30 m (98 ft)” - Again, same as previous two comments.

Added "tall", but the rest of the sentence is what you suggested to change the others to already, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• “comprising cycads” - Change to ‘comprising of cycads’?

Changed, but note it will probably be changed back by a notorious editor:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh this one's new for me. Of all the crusades to go on... The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of sorting the comments per section for ease of navigation. If you have any questions, you know how to find me! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing a lot of weird stuff, everything addressed, though I pinged Jens for the scale issue I'm uncertain about... Seems there are a lot of different ways to describe the same things... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's probably best to wait for Jens to see if he has any comments on that. If that's addressed, I think everything has been taken care of from my point of view. As an aside, it would probably be good to get some kind of article up about dinosaur scale types, or maybe even include them in the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy. Should probably be discussed at WP:DINO. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything has been adressed. I will support. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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