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 Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [1].

Herrerasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

There was talk about nominating this article for Featured Article two years ago, but it never happened, despite lack of opposition. It still meets the criteria, though, and is equal to several of the Featured bird candidates that I have recently seen. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at least five recent surveys of theropod evolution - "surveys" sounds a bit informal to my ears, would not "analysis" or "review" be better?
Changed to "reviews" per your request, sir. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the other archosaurs and synapsids lost diversity. - not thrilled about the wording, something more user-friendly along the lines of decline in variety and number or something similar. Nothing acutely jumps to mind.
I'd think of filling out the second para of Paleoecology by (maybe) some adjectives describing some of the different critters might help make it less listy.
One of the other things I feel would be good to highlight is why Herrerasaurus is important, that is, the poverty of early dinosaur remains, so somehow slotting in something on this, which then helps clarify why the diverse opinions on its placement and how we got to where we are now. This helps with the context of the article.
J worked on the listiness, and I adjusted the "diversity" wording. I've struck out the comments we got to, Cas, but feel free to revert if you feel those issues haven't been properly dealt with. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas. We appreciate your edits, review, and time. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks J. I know it's not a hadrosaur, but if you see something suspicious, feel free to point it out here or attack it directly. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image captions should not include the article name, so for example should be Skull cast in Milan. All need fixing
  • Artist's restoration of – surely Artist’s impression
  • lightly-built – no hyphen after –ly per MOS
  • flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide its lower jaw back and forth – clunky, why not flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide back and forth?
  • forelimbs, which were less than half the length of its hind limbs. – “forelimbs” one word, “hind limbs” two?
  • like Casliber, I don’t think you are helping your reader as much as you could – I had to follow a lot of links to keep up with this article, and the use of less technical language or glosses where possible would make it less likely that you would lose your audience. Two examples: were for ocular and nasal in the frenulum section could be eye and nostril, and Carnosaur could be glossed as Carnosaur, a large predatory dinosaur.

I thought this was generally well-researched and quite well-written article, but before supporting, I’d like to see the prose made a little more accessible where it is feasible to do so without undue verbiage. jimfbleak (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jim. I will work on all your comments this evening. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a pass on some of the terminology, but am not convinced that everything I did helped. J. Spencer (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. If you see further areas which need improvement, please feel free to mention them here or adjust them yourself. As for the alt text, I don't know the first thing about using alt text, and was just going with a "gut feeling", so I could be dead wrong. At any rate, thanks for reviewing the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Thanks Jayen. Per your observations, I've gone through and reworked the portions you highlighted. Thanks also for your edits to the article. We appreciate the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made some additional small copyedits; pls review. I am still not clear what we mean by "only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported". Does it mean that dinosaurs as a monophyletic group really only share one cranial and seven postcranial features out of Bakker's list, and all the other ones Bakker was wrong about? Or does it mean that Bakker's list was right, but Herrerasaurus only exhibits one cranial and seven postcranial features from Bakker's list? I can only see the abstract of Sereno's paper, but from that it's clear that Sereno classified Herrerasaurus as a theropod and thus already a clear dinosaur (located after the saurischian/ornithischian split, and after the theropoda/sauropodomorpha split in the evolutionary tree). Can we make this passage clearer? JN466 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this further, I think this relates to the previous statement that "theropods, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians diverged even earlier than herrerasaurids, before the middle Carnian, and that "all three lineages independently evolved several dinosaurian features, such as a more advanced ankle joint or an open acetabulum"." In other words, some of the features in Bakker's list are now believed to be the result of convergent evolution, rather than due to descent from a common ancestor, and it was the study of Herrerasaurus that first suggested that. Is that correct? JN466 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your edits, and the present thorough review, JN. What the Science paper actually says is: "Of the approximately 50 postcranial synapomorphies listed earlier in support of Dinosauria, only seven are supported by the new material of Herrerasaurus." In other words, yes, according to Sereno and Novas, Bakker's original 59 synapomorphies (9 cranial and 50 postcranial) could be pared down to 1 and 7, respectively (although at least three additional synapomorphies were discovered). The authors believed the other similarities, such as sacral similarities between saurischians and ornithischians, were examples of convergent evolution. I'm certainly open to rephrasing this so it's understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at rewording the passage. The new wording explicitly states that Bakker proposed a list of 9 + about 50 features likely due to common descent. Could you double-check that this is actually so, and that the list referred to is not the result of several authors' work building on Bakker's original paper over the intervening years? Because then we would have to word it differently. Also, if the list of 9 + 50 features was present in Bakker's original paper, then I would suggest the reference to that paper should go to the end of the sentence, after the mention of the list, to make that clear. I've also reworded the lead sentence of the paragraph, to provide better linkage to the preceding paragraph, which already raises some of these issues. JN466 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restructuring. I will check the reference tomorrow, when my subscription to Nature should be fixed (I can't view the paper, despite being logged in). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that later authors built upon this list; Bakker and Galton's 1974 paper list a dozen or so, not the 50 that Sereno and Novas (mostly) reject. I've reworded and added a few additional refs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. Have tweaked the text slightly.
Thanks for following up. And – Support. JN466 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments, observations, and a few edits as well. I really appreciate the depth of your review, JN. I saw you on some other dinosaur talk pages, and appreciate all the attention you've paid to us. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. I'll do it again. :) --JN466 09:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text, per your suggestion. This is the first time I've heard of or used alt text, so if I've blundered, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we FAC writers are in the same boat. With the benefit of my day-old expertise(?) on this subject, my own feeling is that the artist's impressions at least could do with a bit more detail. For example, in the first one you could say it's facing left, that its back is horizontal, and it is pale green and black. Please don't take this as gospel, someone who actually knows what they are doing may have a different view, and I certainly wouldn't make this a deal-breaker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, Jim. I incorporated part of one. I'm sort of leery about including colors in the alt text; in the example given on the alt text page, the coin really is gold. Here, the color is entirely speculative. It would probably work quite well for a bird, where the colors are definitely known... but a fossil animal? I'd hate to give the impression that some sort of color has been preserved in/with the fossils... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, briefer alt text is probably better; at least that's what I've been told by a visually-impaired reader. Imagine having to wait for a longwinded person to explain an image to you.... Anyway, I adjusted the alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eubulides. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this to The tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral projections, balances the body and is also an adaptation for speed. No doubt Firsfron will change this if it has made the water even muddier Jimfbleak. Talk to me 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jim. I've tweaked it further so that it's all past tense, to match the rest of the paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also the paleoclimate mentions forests and rains but not whether it was tropical, temperate etc. ϢereSpielChequers 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the source tomorrow (when I have access to several papers used in the article), but generally the Triassic was warmer than it is today. The North and South Pole were temperate. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned the moist, warm, though seasonal, climate, with references. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! They were all fixed. In my effort to clarify "upland" (above), I linked to a disambiguation page. Now fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns:

Otherwise, Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All images were approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review, File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg here and File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg here. File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg is based on the work of paleontologist Paul C. Sereno (whose recovery of the skull of Herrerasaurus is discussed in this article) [2][3][4]. I don't know of any sources File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg is based on, but it was also approved. We routinely remove images in which the illustration differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), known non-skeletal elements, implied non-skeletal elements, known range of motion, or images which depict a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. WP:DINO is keenly aware of potential problems depicting dinosaurs, and set up an Image Review in 2006 to address the problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please insert the sources for BW in the Description or Source (centralize the sources for the depiction). As for DB, inserting the link for the Dino project's review of this image and pointing out the possible discrepancies in the Description could do, I guess (perhaps that can be done for all images vetted by the project?). Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any (current) discrepancy with the DB image. The wrist pronation ("bunny hands") that was discussed during the image review has since been modified, along with a potential dewclaw problem. I'll certainly add the sources for BW. Thanks for the image review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added for BW. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources

Otherwise sources look good Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 has ISBN now added. Ref 22 already shows the publisher: Gustav Fischer Verlag. I've removed ref 27; although it appeared correctly formatted (it was an episode from a dinosaur documentary called The Nature of the Beast, and thus looked "different" from the paper references), it was from 1990, and didn't add a huge amount of value to the article, since the material was already sourced anyway. Thanks again for the review. Please feel free to make additional comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the caption (but now will the alt caption need adjusting as well?) per your observation. The flexible joint was used for better grasping of its prey. We can mention this feature evolved independently in lizards, but would drawing more of a parallel be OR-ish? I'll see if I can dig up any studies that might compare the Herrerasaurus jaw with those of the anguinomorphans. I've reworded the bipedal sentence to soften it a bit, and split that part off into its own paragraph. Feel free to revert if I've gone too far, or rework if I've not gone far enough. Thanks again for your observations, Narayanese. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth. I've added Spanish parameters to four of the references. Palaeos is quite good; it's not peer-reviewed, but it's good technical material that has been a recommended site at Wikipedia:DINO#Good_non-primary_sites_.28technical.29 for almost four years. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is behind the site? Are they experts in their field? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of Palaeos are Augustus Toby White and M.A. Kazlev, according to their Authors page. According to the page, Mr. White wrote the vertebrate parts, has a Ph.D in biology from Johns Hopkins University, and did some lectures on evolution at Florida Gulf Coast University. Also according to the page, the Palaeos site "is used as supplementary course material at colleges and universities including Cambridge University (UK), the University of Helsinki (Fin.), the University of Washington (USA), Heidelberg University (Ger.), and the Universidad de Granada (Spain), as well as numerous smaller colleges, universities and high schools throughout the world." Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: Palaeos is recommended in Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology[5]. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

I appreciate the observations, David. I've added a ((-)) for DB, and could do the same for BW, but it will cause that section to have a rather large white space on high resolutions. I don't notice it at my normal resolution. The illustration won't work in other sections, as it's used to give the reader a better impression of what Herrerasaurus may have looked like, an impression text simply cannot give. The h2 sections were roughly modeled after Featured Article Compsognathus (Description, Discovery and species, Paleoecology, Paleobiology, Classification, and Popular culture) but in a different order and without a goofy Herrerasaurus "pop culture" section which would be quite anemic. I guess we could tie in your observation to Cas' and have some sort of "Conclusion" section? "To wrap up, Herrerasaurus is important because it's the earliest well-known blah-blah..."? Let me know if this would be acceptable. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello??? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The space breaks larger than it needs to be because of the infobox; it still looks sloppy at anything about 1152px wide screens, but I'm not going to force it. Eh, a conclusion isn't really necessary, just forget it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read Herrarasaurus, and Staurikosaurus, had vestigial outer toes, is that so? If it is, I couldn't find any mention of it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads, "Its fourth and fifth digits were small stubs without claws.[3][9]" I could add the word "vestigial" to it, creating "Its fourth and fifth digits were small vestigial stubs without claws." Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that a description of the fingers? I was referring to the feet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm not aware of the toes being vestigial. The Dinosauria (2004) on page 39 shows the pes (foot) with five digits, and although digits I and V (the outer toes) are small and didn't bear weight, at least digit I bore a claw. This is a little different from Guaibasaurus, where digit V appears to have shrunk to a single useless bone. I will add the above to the article, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added The foot had five toes, but only the middle three (digits II, III, and IV) bore weight. The outer toes (I and V) were small; the first toe had a small claw. per your observations, Funk. What's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I meant, Herrera and other early theropods were apparently unusual due to having five toes on each foot, with the outer one being clawless. Other than that, I don't have anything to add, so I support the nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Funk, and the observation. If you see anything else which sticks out (or doesn't) please feel free to adjust it yourself or bring it up here. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More