Jump to content

Talk:Phosphatodraco/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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]