Jump to content

Talk:Phosphatodraco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePhosphatodraco 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 24, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2022Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

[Untitled]

[edit]

I take the point that this needs a taxonomic box, though the same could be said of any number of palaeontological articles. But how is this categorised wrongly? Why Tree of Life? I cannot find any pterosaur article so categorised. If you are going to slap on a tag please explain yourself. --Gazzster 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Phosphatodraco/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Already is? "consisting of five cervical (neck) vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. I use metrics myself too.
Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order". FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it could be clearer in the lead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all the source says, we can't really change their etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked under first paragraph, "(OCP, located in Casablanca)", FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite important for the context, as it shows they refrained from taking sides. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's implied when they say it's impossible to choose one side or the other because the remains are too fragmentary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PeerJ says "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah CC-BY, the Commons says it's CC-BY-SA Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked those from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same with File:Size disparity of late Maastrichtian pterosaurs and birds.svg Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the ones from that journal. One problem is that the Plos template on Commons gives an outdated licence:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, I still need to explain some anatomical terms, but otherwise should be ready for a look-over. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]