Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ceratosaurus/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 [1].

---

Ceratosaurus

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the more important dinosaur articles: A large meat-eater with nose horn. It just went through a rigorous GA review, and I feel it is ready now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the comparison diagram, and also elaborating on data sources on the image description page

Agreed, and in progress. User:PaleoGeekSquared kindly offered to create a new one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg: what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg

Added date of death for the CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg. It is however unknown for Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg, or at least I couldn't find any info on the author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Joseph M. Gleeson, who could also be linked in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How couldn't I find that, thanks FunkMonk! Resolved now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:Limusaurus_runner_(flipped).jpg needs a data source as does File:Aucasaurus_garridoi_by_Paleocolour.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help here: I thought indicating that it is the author's own work was sufficient? Where is the issue here exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think what is meant is a citation for what the image is based on in the Commons description, or what it can be checked up against (such as a skeletal reconstruction). Like the citation I added to the restoration:[2] That said, those images are part of a transcluded template which is not part of this article itself, so I wonder if that issue should be part of this FAC, and not taken up elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, solved now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually an article citation is meant (rather than specimen numbers), personally I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm not the reviewer, so... FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I assumed this was OK since Rajasaurus restoration.jpg, which does just that, was not objected. But on a general note, I think we should be very careful with adding sources to life reconstructions of other artists when we cannot be sure that the drawing was indeed based on the source we want to cite. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and made the same point here[3], but it seems to be the only compromise found acceptable by FAC reviewers (when the issue is brought up). To quote one commentator in the linked discussion, which the others seem to have agreed with: "I'm far less worried about what the original artist did, or didn't, put in the image file, and more about ensuring that someone checking the image today has a reliable source to refer back to and verify the depiction against." FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I'm not a dinosaur guy, so please be patient with me for not knowing about one of the more important dinosaur articles. Anyway, here is the review.

Lead:

• The first paragraph of the lead is a little long. Is this normal for dinosaur articles? If not, I think it would be better to split the text after the sentence beginning with, This specimen remains the most complete skeleton, into a new paragraph. Then the sentence can be rephrased like this: "The Garden Park specimen remains the most complete skeleton known from the genus, and only a handful of additional specimens have been described since."

OK, splitted.

• estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) in length, at around 8.8 m (29 ft) in length - would it be better if you said "estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) long", and "at around 8.8 m (29 ft) long"?

OK, changed.

• is now found to be unrelated to the latter - This should be either past tense ("was later found..."), or should be "known" if it's kept in present tense ("is now known..."). Usually, "found" is a verb that can apply to one-time event, whereas "known" is a verb that can apply at any time.

Yes, changed!

• more likely served in display - This is confusing to me, I guess you meant "more likely served an aesthetic function" or "more likely was used solely for display".

Of course you are right, changed.

Description:

• bauplan - This is not a well known word. To be more clear, you can say "body plan", or explain what a bauplan is.

Some of the weird words introduced from German. Use "body plan" now!

• estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length by separate authors - This is passive voice that conflicts with the active voice at the beginning of the sentence. How about this: "that separate authors have estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length"

All right, changed.

• it was estimated at 418 kilograms (922 lb), 524 kg (1,155 lb) and 670 kg (1,480 lb) - Do you mean "or" instead of "and"? After all, these are separate estimations.

Yes, changed.

• estimated this specimen 7 m (23 ft) in length - missing a few words. I suggest using either "estimated this specimen to be 7 m (23 ft) in length" or "estimated this specimen's length to be 7 m (23 ft)". This also works if you use "at" instead of "to be".

New sentence I added two days ago … repaired!

• The upwards projecting spinous processes were comparatively large, and, in the dorsal (back) vertebrae, were as tall as the vertebral centra were long. - What is the height?

The exact heights of the neural spines are not explicitly given in the main description of 1920, unfortunately. The relevance of this feature was only noticed in a much later review that is to general to include many measurements (which will change from vertebra to vertebra anyways).

• In contrast to most more derived theropods, which showed only three digits on each manus, that of Ceratosaurus retained four digits. - (1) I think it should be "most more-derived" since "more" is an adverb that qualifies "derived", rather than being a measure of quantity. (2) "that of Ceratosaurus" is awkward diction compared to the rest of the sentence. 95% of readers will not mind if you say "Ceratosaurus retained four digits". or something like that. Technically this is incorrect sentence structure, and for that reason, you can say "those of Ceratosaurus...". (3) By the way, manus leads to a disambiguation page instead of to the correct link, Manus (anatomy). This appears earlier in the paragraph, though.

all fixed!

• digits (digits II–IV) - the parentheses is awkward. How about this: "digits, numbered II–IV"?

perfect, changed!

• Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, directly associated with any vertebrae; their original position on the body thus cannot be inferred from this specimen - This sentence is still pretty long even with the semicolon. A workaround is to use a period instead of a semicolon, or to rephrase like this: "Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not directly associated with any vertebrae, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, and so their original position on the body cannot be inferred from this specimen."

Took your second suggestion, thanks!

More later. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, epicgenius! I really try to remember all these language details, so that I won't repeat the same mistakes next time. And btw, reviews from non-experts are really essential to ensure comprehensibility. Please feel free to simply post sentences which you do not fully understand, I will try my best to make it clearer! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's nice to be of help. Here's the next batch of comments. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Skull:

• The first paragraph is very long (even factoring in the picture). You should consider splitting it.

Did that!

• The lacrimal bone does not only form - I suggest "not only forms" or "forms not only".

Yes, much better.

• This also lead to a broadening of the base - did you mean "leads"?

Put everything in past tense now!

• What's "rugose"?

I changed to "wrinkled".

• would have contained blood vessels in life - "when alive"

Changed accordingly.

• The first eight of these teeth were very long and robust, but from the ninth teeth onward they gradually decrease in size. - This would be "from the ninth tooth onward".

Sure, corrected.

• which are however poorly preserved - this is an awkward structure as compared to the rest of the sentence. In fact, this seems like a ripe opportunity to use a semicolon. "In the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, each half of the dentary (the tooth-bearing bone of the mandible) was equipped with 15 teeth; however, they are poorly preserved."

Thanks, took your wording!

History of discovery (excluding subheader):

• The paragraphs in this section are pretty long, specifically the first paragraph.

splitted all longer paragraphs.

• There are also a lot of parenthetical side notes as well. While I don't object to these side notes, I find that reading them will interrupt the flow of the sentence. For instance, Found in articulation (bones still connected to each other), it was nearly complete, including the skull could be "Found in articulation, with the bones still connected to each other, it was nearly complete, including the skull" or something.

These are solely for explaining the meaning of technical terms. I removed the parentheses for all of these that are longer than three words throughout the article.

• The timeline jumps back and forth, but I understand the paragraph structure. First paragraph is for the first specimen; second paragraph is for reconstruction; third paragraph is for newer finds; and so on. This has to do with the long paragraphs, though, so maybe these can be separate sections. (Or maybe not, depending on how other dinosaur FA's are structured.)

Added subheadings, it is really better this way, thanks. This also gives me space for another image, which I will add later.

• The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911 and since was on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History. - This sentence needs punctuation and maybe a bit of rewording. "The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911, and since then, had been on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History."

Took your wording. But are you sure we need the comma in "then, had been on exhibit"?

I think the comma would make it flow better, but feel free to disagree. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• A second, articulated specimen including the skull (MWC 1) was discovered by Thor Erikson, the son of paleontologist Lance Erikson, in 1976 near Fruita, Colorado - I think you should put "In 1976" at the beginning of the sentence. Otherwise, the end of the sentence seems like it has too much information.

Changed.

• Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claim that the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype was in fact a juvenile individual, with the two larger species representing the adult state of a single species.[21] Oliver Rauhut, in 2003, and Matthew Carrano and Scott Sampson, in 2008, consider the anatomical differences cited by Madsen and Welles to support these additional species to represent ontogenetic (age related) or individual variation. - A lot of infighting there, I see. Anyway, two things. (1) I think "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000," should start a new sentence. (2) Also, if you are putting dates like this, then you should use the past tense, e.g. "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claimed that..." Or you can note that these were when the reports were written: "writing in 2000".

Thanks, all done.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much! Looking forward to the next bunch of comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. This is a long article so it will take some time. Here are my comments for the next section: epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the years 1909 to 1913, German expeditions of the Berlin Museum für Naturkunde brought to light a diverse dinosaur fauna from the Tendaguru Formation in German East Africa, today Tanzania. - 3 things here. (1) "In the years 1909 to 1913" is redundant, and you can just say "From 1909 to 1913". (2) "brought to light" is a little too colloquial for a FA, and so I suggest something like "uncovered" or "popularized" (or a synonym), whichever is more accurate. (3) "German East Africa, today Tanzania" is also awkward. I would think there is some better way to say this, like "German East Africa, now known as Tanzania", "German East Africa, in what is now Tanzania", or something similar.

All changed accordingly.

• and additionally ascribed several teeth to the genus which had originally been described by Janensch as - Two things. (1) "and additionally" is awkward, because "in addition" is how it's usually phrased. (2) At least in American English, "the genus which had" and "the genus that had" have different connotations, even though they technically mean similar things. "Which" implied that there is only one genus, and requires a comma before it, "the genus, which had". "That" implied that there are more than one genus, so it would be "the genus that had".

Ok, the "which" was referring to the teeth, not to the genus; I hope it is clear this way now.

It is. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Labrosaurus (?) stechowi - I noticed that the question mark is not in italics so it must mean something. What does it mean, though?

Simply that the author was unsure about this assignment. Added "possible species of Labrosaurus".

• Janensch, however, did in fact not refer this species to Ceratosaurus but to Megalosaurus; this name therefore might be a simple copying error - This is another very convoluted wording, with several things to point out, so instead I will say what I interpreted this sentence as: "However, Janensch referred to this species as Ceratosaurus, not as Megalosaurus; therefore, this name might be a simple copying error".

Thanks, almost! Took your wording with few modifications.

• not closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus - "neither ... nor" is not usually preceded by a negative, simply because you then have a double negative. So the sentence can be either "...not closely related to either Megalosaurus or Ceratosaurus", or "...closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus".

Oh right, thanks for pointing that out.

• were exposed since due to progressing cliff erosion - also awkward. I actually thought this was a typo at first, but I think you can just flip two words: "were since exposed due to progressing cliff erosion".

All right, I will remember that.

I will review the other sections later. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you, looking forward to the remaining points! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just realized this now, but you may want to place alternative text for each of the images in this entire article. This is what the alternative text in this article looks like now. It's helpful for readers who are vision-impaired. Anyway, more comments below: epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Added alt texts to all images.

Classification:

• This first paragraph is also very long. Same for the second paragraph of "Ecology and feeding" and the only paragraph of "Brain and senses".

Splitted all

• Two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were, however, known in from modern-day birds, and, according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs. - This is a comma overload. My father once said that if you need to use that many commas in a sentence, it's either written awkwardly or should be two sentences (unless it's a list). You can cut down the commas: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds, and according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs." Or you can go further and make two sentences: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds. According to Marsh, these clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs."

Took your first suggestion.

• Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and to the Deinodontoidea. - (1) Could you rephrase this: "referred the genus to the Deinodontidae"? Was the genus classified under the Deinodontidae? It seems to be grammatically correct, but this part of the sentence is confusing, which may explain why at first I thought it was incorrect grammar. (2) I think you should also be consistent with the sentence structure here, and remove "to" in "to the Deinodontoidea". I.e.: "Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and the Deinodontoidea."

Rephrased, hope its better now.

• Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria remained to be not widely accepted - In particular, the wording of "remained to be not widely accepted" is convoluted. Would it be better if you said something like this? "Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria were still not widely accepted..."

Moved the sentence to the beginning of the paragraph, and took your wording.

• It was not before the establishment of cladistic analysis in the 1980s - would "not before" be "not until"?

Right. Corrected.

• Gauthier, in 1986, recognized the Coelophysoidea to be closely related to Ceratosaurus, although this clade falls outside of Ceratosauria in most recent analyses. In 1985, the newly discovered South American genus Abelisaurus was found to be closely related to Ceratosaurus - Should this be chronological? Honest question.

It was not in chronological order in the source. Did that now.

• Oliver Rauhut, in 2004, proposes - if we're still going with past-tense for previous studies, it should be "proposed".

Corrected.

I will return with more comments. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, and many thanks as always, looking forward to the rest! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I haven't forgotten about this review and will come back to it later, either today or tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! I'm looking forward to the next comments :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ecology and feeding:

• in sites where it co-occurs with Allosaurus, it is outnumbered by the latter by 7.5 to 1 on average - It seems like there are too many "it"s here. I guess you can say something like, "Ceratosaurus was a rare element of the theropod fauna; it is outnumbered by Allosaurus at an average rate of 7.5 to 1 in sites where they co-occur."

Thanks, took your wording!

• This is, according to these researchers, also evidenced by different proportions of the skull, teeth, and forelimb - You can also say "According to the researchers, this is also..."

Yes, that is better

• Ceratosaurus and megalosaurids must have predominantly hunted at and within the water - The phrase "hunted at the water" is weird. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they hunted on the banks of waterways?

The source is not precise, so I changed it to "hunted near and within waterbodies", hope that is better.

• This section jumps over the place chronologically: you describe Henderson 1998, Foster and Chure 2006, Carpenter 2010, Bakker and Bir 2004, Bakker 1986, and Holliday and Witmer 1986. It is probably easier to read when you clarify that the study was made that year, so that it doesn't have to necessarily be read chronologically. E.g. "in a 1986 study". versus "in 2004".

Ok, did that. I decided not to go chronologically here but group these studies by "topic", as some of them are responses/evaluations of the main studies.

Function of the nasal horn and osteoderms: No problems that I can see.

Forelimb function: No problems here, either.

Brain and senses:

• A cast of the brain cavity of the holotype was made under supervision of Marsh probably during preparation of the skull, allowing Marsh to conclude that the brain "was of medium size, but comparatively much larger than in the herbivorous Dinosaurs". - The middle portion of this sentence (made under supervision of Marsh probably during preparation of the skull) doesn't flow well. This is a place where commas or reorganization would be helpful. E.g. "A cast of the brain cavity of the holotype was made under Marsh's supervision, probably during preparation of the skull, allowing Marsh..."

Thanks for the suggestion, changed!

Fusion of metatarsals and paleopathology: Everything here is all good.

Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography:

• All North American Ceratosaurus finds come from the Morrison Formation, a sequence of shallow marine and alluvial sediments which, according to radiometric dating, ranges between 156.3 million years old (Ma) at its base,[53] and 146.8 million years old at the top,[54] which places it in the late Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian, and early Tithonian stages of the Late Jurassic period. - This is a pretty long sentence. I think the best place to split it is after reference 54.

Splitted and added a bit of general information.

• I suggest that for some sentences, you can use a serial semicolon if comma-separated list-items do themselves contain commas, or even if some of these list items are phrases. E.g.
  • "...the theropods Koparion, Stokesosaurus, Ornitholestes, Allosaurus, and Torvosaurus; the sauropods Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Diplodocus; and the ornithischians Camptosaurus, Dryosaurus, Othnielia, Gargoyleosaurus, and Stegosaurus."
  • "...ray-finned fishes; frogs; salamanders; turtles, like Dorsetochelys; sphenodonts; lizards; terrestrial and aquatic crocodylomorphans, such as Hoplosuchus; and several species of pterosaur, like Harpactognathus and Mesadactylus."

Did that!

That's all for now. Once these issues are responded to, I will be happy to support. epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your very constructive review, I think your points improved the prose and reading flow a lot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I now support this featured article nomination. 23:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

User:SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

Are the numbers next to the inline citations page numbers of the sources? It makes it look a bit messy. If they are page numbers, then it doesn't make complete sense because you show different page numbers in the citations, for example [2] or [4]. Also, what do you mean exactly by "contemporary Allosaurus"? As both Allosaurus and Ceratosaurus lived in roughly the same time period. Is it referring to the Allosaurus as we know it today?

Yes, these are the page numbers, see Template:Rp. They are consistently used when 1) the source has too many pages and thus needs more precise referencing and 2) it is a journal article, or a book that is cited multiple times. The page numbers in the references always give the full range of the respective paper within the journal; this is the standard in scientific literature (and it would be highly confusing if we do it otherwise). Regarding your second question: "Contemporary" is used in the sense of "coexistent in time". Should I formulate it differently? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• You mention 5.69 m in lead but two estimates in body of article

Fixed.

• I'd be inclined to link "validity"

Linked.

• Maybe link "characterised" to Phenotypic trait?

Linked.

• ...although originally described as a presumed antecedent of Ceratosaurus, was later found to be unrelated to the latter. - "to the latter" is redundant here

Removed

• The characteristic nasal horn was probably not used... - is "characteristic" necessary here?

Removed

• The third, yet undescribed, specimen BYUVP 12893 was claimed to be the largest yet discovered, although estimates have not been published - there is alot of "estimating" going on in this paragraph. Perhaps change this word to "measurements"?

Used more varied wording, to avoid some of them.

• in their 2000 monography - should this be "in their 2000 monograph"?

Changed.

• I made these changes and hope they are okay.

All good, thanks for that!

Overall a good read and on track to gain FA status once issues resolved...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! Everything resolved today, let me know if there are further issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

• From the lead section, paragraph 3: "The tail was deep in profile." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should mean "deep in side view", I just removed the "in profile". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, I still don't understand what this means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm no native speaker, so forgive me that I do not always spot this kind of problem immediately. I now tried with "the tail was deep from top to bottom", is that better? I use "deep" in the sense of "vertically wide". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "thick"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Thick" would be misleading, as the tail is only broad from top to bottom, while being flat from side to side. That's why I used "deep". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 4: "Ceratosaurus is the eponymous genus of the Ceratosauria." I don't think that this is the correct use of the word "eponymous". "Eponymous" means that it is named after a person, place or other proper noun. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It means exactly that (the group is named after the genus). This formulation is at least common in the technical literature; should I reformulate? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How about: "The genus Ceratosaurus gives its name to the ceratosauria"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, not entirely happy. Would "Ceratosaurus is eponymous for the Ceratosauria" be better?

No, not really. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed to your suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 4: "Ceratosaurus may have preyed upon plant-eating dinosaurs, although it was also suggested to have primarily hunted aquatic prey such as fish." The latter half of the sentence is somewhat clumsy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

reformulated.

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 3: "Only the first phalanx of digits II, III and IV is preserved in the holotype, respectively." What does "respectively" mean here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

that all three phalanges (one of each digit) are not preserved. Put the holotype at the beginning of the sentence, did that solve the issue?

No. The word "respectively" is not required. Also, "phalanx" should be plural: "phalanges". "In the holotype, only the proximal phalanges of digits II, III and IV are preserved." Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 4: "Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton." I am not sure that "ossicles" is the right word to use here. Would "osteoderms" be okay? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the commonly used technical term for small osteoderm. Linked it provisionally to osteoderm, better?

The linked page, "Osteoderm", does not mention ossicles at all. Meanwhile, "Ossicles" describes only the tiny bones in the ear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", subsection "Skull", paragraph 3: "In contrast, several members of the Abelisauridae feature very low tooth crowns." Perhaps this should be "short" rather than "low"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Changed.

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "History of discovery", subsection "The holotype specimen of Ceratosaurus nasicornis", paragraph 1: "Significant missing parts include... the humerus... and most of the foot." Should this be "humeri" and "feet" (plural)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed "parts" to "bones" to avoid this, as I would have to add quite some more elements which are only preserved on one side of the body; important are the completely unknown bones.

Ah, then the problem lies with the use of the definite article "the". The phrases "the humerus" and "the foot" imply that the specimen should only have one humerus and one foot. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to "a humerus... and most of a foot"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, when writing "a foot is missing" it is unclear if both or only one is missing. I therefore took your first suggestion, and amended the list to include both left and right elements. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The end of the first paragraph of "History of discovery", subsection "The holotype specimen of Ceratosaurus nasicornis", requires an inline citation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-added (missing citation resulted from split of the paragraph suggested during review). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the review and for the improvements you made directly in the article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "History of discovery", subsection "Additional finds in North America", paragraph 2: "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claimed that the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype was in fact a juvenile individual, with the two larger species representing the adult state of a single species." I can't seem to find the referenced paper with the authors' names online. Is the first author's name definitely Brooks Britt? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a conference Abstract, not a paper. Here is the online access: [4]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources are of the approipriate quality and reliability. Just a few minor issues:

• General: although not strictly an FAC requirement, 10-digit ISBNs are best converted to their modern 13-digit form, to provide unity of presentation. The converter gizmo is here

All converted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 3: Is this a spelling error (Cerantosaurs)?

It says "Ceratosaurs", and that is correct (re-checked the title). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 18: You should italicise and w/link The Washington Post, and also add a (subscription required) template

Uhh, it was not paywall-hidden a few months ago … added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 33: Add (subscription required) template.

No need here, the fulltext pdf can be downloaded without subscription. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Link does now point directly to PDF. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "other large-sized theropod genera" I would delete "-sized".

True, thanks for finding that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• The present tense is normally used for current opinions. Does the past tense in the fourth paragraph of the lead as, for example, in "some paleontologists proposed" mean that these opinions are out-dated?

I was told to better use past tense throughout. I cannot use both mixed as I usually cannot decide what is outdated and what is not without introducing my own OR. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• a link for 'caudal' would be helpful.

Linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "co-ossified". I assume that this means fused. I suggest explaining with "co-ossified (fused)" (The article which the term links to does not appear helpful.)

I changed to "fusion" throughout, as this appears to be easier to understand than co-ossification. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not clear about the distinction between basal and derived. Does basal mean similar to early ancestors and derived as having evolved to be more different?

Precisely. Unfortunately, there is no suitable article to link "derived" other than the general apomorphy. For the future, we plan to solve these and other issues with the help of a glossary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "a stress fracture in a referred foot bone". What does 'referred' mean in this context?

Changed to "foot bone referred to the genus" to be clearer. It means the bone was found isolated, not part of one of the skeletons, but could still be assigned to the genus.

• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Great to hear that. Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. My only other quibble is that I found the word "refer" in this context jarring. Is it USAmer or a technical paleontological term? It does not seem to be listed in this sense in UK dictionaries. I would prefer a word such as "attribute" as "an isolated foot bone attributed to the genus", and in the lead "their attribution as Ceratosaurus" rather than "their referral to Ceratosaurus". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yes, "attributed" is commonly used in this sense, but might be technical speech. I changed to "assigned" throughout. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.