Talk:Massospondylus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Massospondylus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 4, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Massospondylus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Species? 2 Length 3 Erected name? 4 Claw and feet 5 Grew steadily? 6 Length 7 Infobox - synonyms 8 Paleoecology 9 Growth 10 Description: fenestra 11 Copyedit complete 12 GA 13 Master's project/interactive Masso web site 14 Total fenestrae 15 Metric conversion 16 Suggested revision re: foramina 17 Tooth crown 18 Second copy-edit 19 New subsections 20 Size comparison

[edit] Species?

I have a personal record of a species, M. carinatus or M. clarinatus. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

carinatus is the type species, clarinatus is a typo. Incidentally, there are several old dubious species for Massospondylus, and a few from overambitious lumping efforts in the 1980s. J. Spencer 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article currently states Massospondylus was 6.1 meters long. Seebacher (2001) gives a total length of 4 m and uses this for a weight of 136 kg (300 lbs). Lambert (1993) gives a length of 5 m. Obviously, the true length is going to affect the weight. I can't use the Seebacher weight without using his length. Does anyone have a different weight estimate based on a different length, or another source on overall length? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erected name?

"The family name Massospondylidae was once erected for the genus" Not familiar with this use of "erect". Quick search in dictionary and in Taxonomy didn't find it. Is this a jargon use in this field, or someone's vandalism? Unimaginative Username 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Erect" in this case is scientifically standard usage, but "coined" means the same thing. We get a similar but not as humorous problem with the usage of "refer" ("BMNH R5407 was referred to Massospondylidae"), which we usually change to "assign" when we catch it. I'll take care of that one. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's scientifically standard, that's cool, but then I was surprised not to find this usage in the dictionary. Not worried about puns, but perhaps articles should use terms with which lay readers are familiar, unless the terms are defined or linked? Unimaginative Username 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know sometimes I slip in too much of the fancy terminology (that, and the occasional hundred-word sentence). I'm all for clarity and using more common alternatives. J. Spencer 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I still remember that sentence. :) Actually, I'm the culprit responsible for "erected" in this case. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand in this sense. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check out WP:JARGON :) imho, if it isn't in the dictionary, it's jargon :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Unimaginative Username 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claw and feet

It bore a sharp thumb claw on each of its forefeet, used in defense or feeding. Which was used in defense or feeding, the claw or the (whole) foot? Advise, and I'll revise. Unimaginative Username 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Both paw and claw, but this sentence is specific to the claw. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Revised to be unambiguous. Unimaginative Username 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grew steadily?

Recent studies indicate Massospondylus grew steadily,... Each individual grows steadily throughout its own life? The average physical size of the species increased through the years? The population grew steadily? Unimaginative Username 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual Masssospondylus grew in size at a steady rate. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy... Are you helping us with this article, too, UI? It's much appreciated.

The distinction is important because the other well-known prosauropod, Plateosaurus, did not grow at a steady rate: a study indicated it displayed developmental plasticity: grew when food was plentiful or when the climate was favorable. The same study indicated that Massospondylus, despite its many similarities with Plateosaurus, grew at a steady rate, as explained in the Growth section. My thanks to J. for answering the other questions. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy-geeks are uncomfortable with having a statement in the intro that is ambiguous until some later section is read. Changed to "grew steadily throughout its lifespan". Yea/nay? Unimaginative Username 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a 'yea' for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Massospondylus was a mid-sized prosauropod, at around 4 meters (13 ft) ... possibly reaching a length of 6 meters (20 ft). Is there any reason why this should not be "... at around 4-6 meters etc."? Also, if metric is converted in this section, shouldn't it be converted in the intro also? Unimaginative Username 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The length is a little fuzzy; 4 m is the typical length (that I've seen quoted, at least), with 6 m being the longest quoted. The two are split up in the sentence to preserve their relationship with sources (Seebacher gives the weight and the 4 m length, which should go together; Glut gives 4 to 6 m in the 2000 supplement). The metric should be converted in the intro as well; not sure why that was missed. Experience tells me that if 6 m is not included in the article but is used somewhere in the wild, there will be at least one editor who will stage a hunger strike to get it included. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No question about that :) Would there be anything wrong with citing 4m as the most common estimate among scientists, but then adding that one, or some minority, estimate up to 6m (assuming that you have the sources to verify that)? Unimaginative Username 04:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Something along that line would work. Of all my sources, 4m is most common, with the two editions of the Dinosauria having a "ca. 5m" length, and "4m to 6m" coming from Donald F. Glut sources (The Dinosaur Society Encyclopedia and Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia Supplement 1). Glut is an encyclopedist, not a primary researcher, so he's probably using a maximum figure from someone else's publication, but what that publication is, I don't know. J. Spencer 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision:
"Massospondylus was a mid-sized prosauropod, at around 4 meters (13 ft) in length and weighing around 135 kilograms (300 lb),[1] although a few sources have estimated its length at up to 6 meters (20 ft)."
To support this, it might be best to cite multiple sources for the 4 m length. Comments? Incidentally, do those 6 m estimates come with a corresponding weight estimate? Just curious. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That works for me, UI. I had left a note (above) about this exact same issue: Seebacher has a 4 meter length estimate with an estimated weight based on that length. I have a secondary source which gives a length of 5 m, but no weight estimate. I have over a dozen PDFs on Massospondylus, but none of the others gives a weight estimate. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw that after making the above post :) Hope to hear from J. Spencer on this. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although most of my sources with length are secondary as well. Of course, that's true of most size estimates: you find them in the press releases and the dinosaur encyclopedias and dictionaries as opposed to journal articles. Huh, I wonder what length Tom Holtz uses in his new encyclopedia. J. Spencer (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that means we have a consensus on the proposed revision. Would one of you kindly make the edit, as you know which source references to put with which statement? I don't want to mess those up. I did my part by coming up with the proposed wording :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DId you mean like what I did, or was that overkill? J. Spencer (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding more and more that on WP, there is no such thing as "overkill" when it comes to sources. The more sources, the less room for contention (though contention shall be with us always). Therefore, I declare this issue

Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox - synonyms

There are ? before each of the synonyms. In my Firefox browser, these may indicate a character that it doesn't recognize. What would that be? Or it could indicate doubt about whether these guys are in fact synonyms. The article appears to indicate that these names are of "little scientific value" so the logical question is whether they should be in an infobox at all. If of little value, eliminate; if considered by some scientists but not others, perhaps the text explanation suffices. It seems the infobox should be for pertinent *facts*, no? Unimaginative Username 12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The ? are for genera that are probably but not absolutely synonyms; one point for their inclusion is that the names redirect to this article, so someone who was searching on Aristosaurus would find that name relatively near the top (in the taxobox) and know why there was a redirect. That's the theory, at least. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing these names. That these names are dubious, but have been assigned to Massospondylus is a fact, so they should stay in the taxobox, unless they are discussed in the lead itself (which may be going them undue weight; half of them are, after all, just a few bones). But someone who was searching for information on them would be redirected to our article here, with no other explanation why, except buried way down in the text. Readers shouldn't be confused as to why they are redirected to another article. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No change. Just asking. Thanks to both for the response. Unimaginative Username 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleoecology

...including the small theropod Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis; a species of Melanorosaurus (M. thabanensis)... In punctuating these clauses, I made the assumption that M. rhodesienses is not a species of Melanosaurus; hence, the semi-colon. If M rhod. is in fact a speicies of the following name, then the semi-colon gets reverted to the more-lightly-separating comma. Advise. Unimaginative Username 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

M. rhodesiensis is indeed not a species of Melanorosaurus. J. Spencer 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks. Unimaginative Username 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Growth

"Massospondylus grew at a maximum rate of 34.6 kg year–1" I can put in the "per" ("34.6 kg per year"), but what is the -1 superscript? Should that be "source #1" (in a reference box) ? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a way of writing "34.6 kg per year" (34.6 kg/year is the same as 34.6 kg year to the negative first power).

• I was going to ask if that's what was meant, but I was afraid you would take the question as sarcastic. I thought it was a typo. :) I'm familiar with the math, although readers without advanced math might not be, but I've never seen that usage in Am-En -- it's either "per year" or kg/year". Is it perhaps unique to Br-En? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"34.6 kg per year" without the superscript -1 conveys the same information. J. Spencer (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I just edited it myself, and threw in a conversion for free. J. Spencer (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What a deal! Quid pro quo, threw in a copy-edit of the conversion for free. Incidentally, is that level of precision really possible - growth rate to the nearest tenth of a kg - in something from 190 million years ago? Not arguing, just surprised. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The original source used the weird negative superscript, and I wasn't about to change it, as my math is pretty lousy. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way about precision when writing up the growth rate for Allosaurus. Yeah, maximum of 148 kg/year... never more or less! I'd feel a lot more comfortable with something like "grew at about 150 kg/year maximally", but that's not what the source said. Someday we'll all have to get together and publish a paper of rounded figures for fossil measurements, so we'll have a citation. J. Spencer (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps science should have the same rule about precision that WP does? Surely no respected scientist would pretend to an unrealistic level of precision to make itself appear more knowledgeable... would it? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this issue is Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're claiming that the growth rate was always 34.6 kg/yr, since it would vary between individuals, but they have to use the result they actually got from their calculations, since they need to make their results reproducible. If someone else runs their numbers, they should get the same result, which they wouldn't if a rounded number had been published. It's assumed that the number is just a rough guideline. Sheep81 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Being a copy-editor and not a scientist, the question was directed not at the math, but at the wording of the statement, ""Massospondylus grew at a maximum rate of 34.6 kg year", which is a categorical assertion on the basis of, what, three specimens? Imagine aliens digging through our fossil remains. Depending upon whether they dig up Joe Pesci or Magic Johnson, they're going to come up with very different human growth rates. Preferred wording would be something like, "The specimens analyzed to date indicate a maximum (or, "average maximum") growth rate of..." which, yes, should be reproducible by others from the same specimens, though perhaps contradicted should new specimens be found. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just nitpicking here, but "average maximum" is an oxymoron unless all data points are the same. I agree with your point though. Sheep81 (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• "East Nowhere has an average maximum temperature of 30 in the summer and an average maximum of 15 in the winter." I can't find the oxymoron there :) (Growth rate per individual might have some variation from year to year. "Specimen #1's maximum growth rate was in Year 4, at 37 kg/yr. Spec #2 maxed at 35 kg/yr, in Yr 3. Spec #3 maxed at 32.1 kg/yr, in Year 5. Their average maximum growth rate was 34.7 kg." I don't know the specific facts, but still think that there can be an average maximum, no? Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description: fenestra

"A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, which were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus" = eyes and nose are smaller than P's. If the fenestrae were smaller, would change to "A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, and were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus". Confirm. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The fenestrae were smaller. But since the whole skull was smaller, all the holes were smaller. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• "The orbit was proportionally larger in Massospondylus than in related genera such as Plateosaurus. A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, which were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus." The orbit was larger, (or perhaps smaller, but proportionately larger), but the eyes were smaller, correct? Either way, the thrust I get from the sentence is the comparison of fenestrae specifically. If orbit of M is larger than P, but ant.fen. of M are smaller than P., perhaps "but" should be used for contrast? ""The orbit was proportionally larger in Massospondylus than in related genera such as Plateosaurus. A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, but were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus." (Rest assured that only copy-geeks notice such things. No human reader will ever note the distinction.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh....hmm... the antorbital fenestra was definitely smaller. I'm not sure I can source whether the nares and orbits were proportionately smaller in Masso than in Platey, because if the skull was enlarged to the size of Platey's... Proportion throws everything off here. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think what is confusing me here (doesn't take much) is that the article says that the orbit was proportionatley larger in M than in P. (M > P). Should it be "smaller than in P", or should the proportion part just be omitted? The article says that the skull of M was wider and shorter than P, but that might be due to crushing. Maybe just stick with what's known -- that the eyes, nose, and fenestrae were smaller than those of Plateosaurus (if that's accurate)? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Here it is! Reference [7], The Dinosauria, pg 237, states that Massospondylus had a proportionately larger orbit and a deeper skull than Plateosaurus, but a shorter snout. (This is because the antorbital fenestra was smaller in Massospondylus.) The nares were smaller proportionally (at least 60% of the orbit's diameter in Plateosaurus; less than 50% in Massospondylus). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"The eyes, nose, and the pair of antorbital fenestrae between them were all smaller than those of Plateosaurus"? Just a suggestion -- perhaps you have a better revision. The sentence might be a good place to cite the reference you mention. Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the eyes were proportionately larger. The citation is already there: "The skull bore two pairs of temporal fenestrae, two almost-circular eye sockets, and large elliptical nares. The orbit was proportionally larger in Massospondylus than in related genera such as Plateosaurus. A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, which were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus. Behind the eyes was a fourth pair of holes called the infratemporal fenestrae. These holes reduced the weight of the skull and were filled with non-bony tissue in the living animal.[7]" Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for this non-scientist user to withdraw for lack of knowledge. On a strictly-grammatical basis, though, the original question asked in this subsection still stands. Does "which" refer to the fenestrae, or to the eyes and nose? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The antorbital fenestra, sorry. Thanks for your patience. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Do you have a preference between, "A pair of antorbital fenestrae were between the eyes and the nose, and were smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus" versus "A pair of antorbital fenestrae, smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus, were between the eyes and the nose."? Feel free to edit the article with either of these if you like one, or with any other phrasing that prevents the question from arising. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've chosen the latter, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit complete

...except for the single question above, which one of the editors here can handle with the criteria supplied . Moved to "ready for proofread" section at the Requests page. Since there are far too few active members of the LoCE to handle the demand for copy-edits, proofreads unfortunately may not happen for some time, if at all. I would proceed with your GA review -- it looks like a GA to me. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, UI. Your work on this article has been invaluable. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Good luck with GA (and FA!) Will be watching the page for a little while at least, but let me know if it makes it to GA, if you don't mind. GA and FA reviews are as valuable feedback to copy-editors as they are to the article's editors. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely will, UI. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Wow. This is a very pretty article. I can only offer a few suggestions:

• Where the Greek terms making up the dinosaur's name are given, the actual Greek should be given to the masson part to be consistent.
• There's a passing reference to how Plateosaurus is slightly more different to Massospondylus, but maybe this could be more elaborated on.
• The paleoecology section could be expanded a little. How does Massospondylus fit into this picture of the Early Jurassic?

Other than that, it's a really well-written article that I really enjoyed reading. bibliomaniac15 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article, Bibliomaniac. I appreciate your suggestions, and will try to incorporate them into the article tomorrow. If you have other suggestions or ideas, please do not hesitate to make them. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master's project/interactive Masso web site

Have you guys seen this? Would be cool for external links, at least![1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a great find, Dinoguy. I'm adding it to the links section. Will take a closer look this week. The pages I looked at are impressive. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total fenestrae

"The skull bore two pairs of temporal fenestrae, two almost-circular eye sockets, and large elliptical nares. The orbit was proportionally larger in Massospondylus than in related genera such as Plateosaurus. A pair of antorbital fenestrae, smaller than those seen in Plateosaurus, were between the eyes and the nose. Behind the eyes was a fourth pair of holes called the lateral temporal fenestrae." However, the (nice, new) diagram caption says *five* pairs of fenestrae, not four, and this side view shows only one temporal fenestra, the lateral, whereas "two pairs of temporal fenestrae" leads one to expect another temporal fenestra in this side view. Apparently, the mandibular fenestra is the fifth, but that doesn't match with "two pairs of temporal fenestrae", unless the mandibular are regarded as one of the temporal, in which case, it's not apparent to the reader. ("Mandibular temporal fenestra"?) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As with many vertebrate features, fenestrae came in pairs: there was one on each side of the skull when seen from a profile view. The mandible (lower jaw) had a small pair of fenestrae that were sort of filled in. I didn't mention the mandibular fenestrae because it's in the lower jaw, was pretty small, and there don't appear to be a whole lot of papers specifically the lower jaw of Massospondylus. Nonetheless, this needs some clarification in the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the text says "two" pairs of temporal fenestrae. Should this be changed to "a pair of temp. f."? Unimaginative Username (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the other pair of temporal fenestrae is (are?) on top of the skull, not visible from a profile view. They're called supratemporal fenestrae. Probably needs to be cleared up somehow though. Sheep81 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lateral temporal fenestrae are also commonly called infratemporal fenestrae. The image caption is wrong too, should be six pairs (external nares, aof, orbit, stf, itf, mandibular). Sheep81 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the caption just says "various" so never mind. Sheep81 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Looking forward to the revised diagram. Question: Should the diagram be a view from 45⁰ above, so that it captures all of the fenestra? Unimaginative Username (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be easier to just do a second view from the top if we want to go that far. Steve's doing a great job replicating pre-existing images, it might be asking a lot to translate that to a weird angle. Sheep81 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could also just draw a line to where it would be and label it "supratemporal fenestra (not visible)" or something. In case you are wondering, if you see the Y-shaped bone behind the orbit, that is called the postorbital bone (creative, I know). Then right in the crook of the Y there is another bone sticking up from the top of the skull, that's the parietal bone... you can only see a bit of it, but it's actually much larger. The stf is located between the parietal and postorbital, and is also bounded by the frontal (the bone you can see at the top of the orbit) and the squamosal (the bone at the upper rear corner of the lateral temporal fenestra). Pretty soon you are gonna be able to write a thesis on the holes in this skull! Sheep81 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

<out> No doubt :) Hate to put anyone to extra work, but since the article specifically refers to six pairs, readers (like this one) might look at the diagram and see something missing. A second view, from above, would really clear this up beyond doubt, and match the text. Also, the text should mention the mandibular fenestrae, since it mentions all of the others. Unimaginative Username (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that entire section of the paragraph, see if it makes any more sense. I'll see if Steve can do another image or adjust the current one. Sheep81 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done It's now completely idiot-proof, because this idiot just read it and understood it completely :) The two-view diagrams help to, uhh, really paint a picture for the reader. I love it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am very happy with the final result of the diagram. I assume the caption is ok now? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's so good I added it to the temporal fenestra article! Sheep81 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. Presumably, even "zero-knowledge" readers can count to six :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metric conversion

"The 6-meter-(18 ft-)long[39] carnivorous theropod Dracovenator..." Six meters rounds to twenty feet, as is done previously in the article. Is there a reason for this math -- was the specimen's length first described in feet, as 18 feet? That seems unusual in the world of science. (And wasn't "Dracovenator" a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger? If not, it should be :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it was described in meters; I'm just terrible at Math. :) -venator is a pretty common suffix for theropods: Afrovenator, Dracovenator, Neovenator, Juravenator, Microvenator, Sinovenator, Stygivenator, and (no joke) Xinjiangovenator. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Next theropod found in California (don't hold your breath) MUST be named Govenator, hahaha... Sheep81 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Or Austria! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's already a plesiosaur named Terminonatator, heh. Sheep81 (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a T-shirt with a picture of Ahnold and the caption "Governator" Anyway, this issue is Y Done (until the find that California dinosaur) Unimaginative Username (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested revision re: foramina

"Prosauropods are unusual in their lack of an extensive system of pneumatic foramina, the only major group of saurischians without the widespread foramina." I was about to cut a lot of this as being redundant, but thought I'd better make sure I'm not missing something.

1. "Prosauropods are unusual in their lack of an extensive system of pneumatic foramina."
   
2. "(Prosauropods are) the only major group of saurischians without the widespread foramina."
   

Is the first clause saying anything that the second clause doesn't? Being the "only" one automatically makes it "unusual". Unless there is some finer distinction, I would revise to:
"Prosauropods are the only major group of saurischians without an extensive system of pneumatic foramina." (clearly, unusual). Would this proposed revision be losing anything? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, UI. That way, the fact that the other saurischians had them is mentioned, along with the idea that the prosauropods did not, and a slight redundancy is eliminated. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth crown

"The maximum width of the crown was wider than the root"
"width ... was wider" seems redundant. Changing to "The maximum width of the crown was greater than that of the root." If this is not scientifically accurate, please let me know. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate. Thanks. *slaps forehead*. I always thought I was pretty good at English: got A's all through high school and college. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done It's always easier to see the mote in one's neighbor's eye than the log in one's own :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second copy-edit

The article was copyedited as a GAC. After it passed GA, the editors nominated it for FA, received feedback, made some changes, and asked me to review it again. Have done so, including making some changes prompted by the FA reviewers. Hence the second c/e signature in the box. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New subsections

At the risk of being repetitious, I don't have adequate knowledge of either the subject or the project to know the accuracy of the Discovery/species/dubious division, but this latest division definitely appears sensible to the un-knowledgeable. Also has the positive side effect of breaking up a huge chunk of info-dense material into more reader-friendly bites. ("byte-sized" chunks?) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size comparison

Could someone make one for this article? It's the only featured dino without one... FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Funk. If no one has made one by tomorrow afternoon, I could give it a go. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Put one up on review, slightly modified from Spindler's (fixed hands, made it bipedal). Not sure if that restoration is up to snuff in other areas however. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)