Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diodorus scytobrachion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Diodorus scytobrachion 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. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2023. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh that was faster than I expected, note I still need to expand the intro, will get to that soonish, so it's not just a oversight hehe. The rest of the article should be fine to review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Lead:
- "in having forwards-tilted teeth" shouldn't that be "forward-tilted teeth"?
- "and the dentary is distinct in being bowed" link and/or description for dentary?
- Discovery:
- WHEN were they discovered?
- "the first body fossil record" link/description for "body fossil record"?
- Description:
- "integument" link and/or description?
- Lower jaw:
- "nutrient foramina" link and/or description?
- Limb bones:
- Link for "crista tibiofibularis"
- Link for "lateral condyles"
- Classification:
- Nothing "wrong" but I had to laugh at the "non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs" phrase... as a non-specialist .. that's just amusing phrasing
- Yeah, and don't get me started on "non-archosauriform archosauromorphs"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "these researchers did not find it unlikely that they belonged within Dinosauria" is awkward - can we rephrase?
- Shouldn't large chunks of this be in Silesauridae instead? Much of this section is about the family not about the specific species...
- Well, I've tried to write it with focus on this particular genus within the framework of its entire group. The thing is that how silesaurs as a whole are classified of course has implications to what kind of animal Diodorus itself is, so I tried to focus on the parts of these studies that specifically deal with Diodorus or has direct implications for it (is it a silesaurid or an actual dinosaur?). If there is something you find conspicuously irrelevant, let me know, but I feel it's a fine line. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Paleobiology:
- "obligate quadruped" link and/or description?
- Paleoenviroment:
- "t5 unit" link?
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- Spotchecks:
- "They noted that the overall pattern of silesaurid evolution appears to have been a shift from carnivory (typified by zipodont, conical teeth) to herbivory throughout the Triassic, when sulcimentisaurians developed mainly leaf-shaped teeth, similar to the convergent development in sauropodomorphs which also became specialized for herbivory in the Late Triassic." is sourced to this source which I believe is supported by the paragraph beginning "An overview of silesaurid..." in the "Silesaurid paleoecology" section.
- "Piechowski and the paleontologist Mateusz Tałanda concluded in 2020 that the short hindlimbs combined with the elongated forelimbs supported the idea that it was an obligate quadruped." is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "They hypothesized that the beak-like jaws were adapted for pecking small insects off the ground like modern birds." is sourced to this source which supports the information (thankfully, this one was in the abstract which spared me endless pages of descriptions of individual bones - that stuff is as dry as the descriptions of individual letters in manuscript studies!)
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Graphic for estimated size[edit]
The article says it was 2.3m long...when I look at the graphic for estimated size: the body is about 1m (one full square), and the tail fills up about half a square, so the size would amount to 1.5m. Am I reading or seeing something wrong? Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are discrepancies between the published size estimated. SlvrHwk, who made the diagram, can probably explain further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
-
- This one is complicated—Holtz's (possibly outdated) appendix from 2011 is used as the source for the 2.3 m estimate. However, none of the known Diodorus fossils scale to an animal of that size, unless one assumes outlandish proportions. Since it cannot be said for certain how many individuals the bones came from, I scaled the silhouette to the holotype (dentary), which produced the largest animal (~1.5 m) assuming average silesaurid proportions. An approximate size breakdown of specimen sizes can be seen here. Hope this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class dinosaurs articles
- Low-importance dinosaurs articles
- WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
- FA-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance FA-Class Palaeontology articles
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles