Talk:Heterodontosaurus

It will be?

I live in Patagonia. I have information on a fosil with different teeth (eyeteeth of carnivore and molares of hervívoro). Until today I could not determine to that species corresponds. I need that a professional (Paleontólogo) writes me to verify if is a Heterodontosaurus. Please Urgent. Victor Feildman mentario@hotmail.com

---

Feathers?

Shouldn't Heterodontosaurus have feathers, after all Tianyulong does. DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC). It's probable, but not as solidly bracketed as it is for, say, Deinonychus. We're dealing with a sample size of at most two ornithischains with feathers that may or may not be homologous. Still... it would be a fairly safe bet. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Psittacosaurus also has feather-like quills suggesting that it could of have been present in all (or most) heterodontiformes. Besides, the feathers in raptors are only proven to be in three species (Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus and Velociraptor). Yet we put them in all species. Also we only have one proven species of therizinosaur with feahers (Beipiaosaurus) yet the group gets one. DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.6.247 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but we know that the group ancestral to "raptors" also had feathers, since every group down the tree from them up until carnosaurs have them, and they're all clearly the same structures. With heterodontosaurs, there's still a slight possibility that the feathers of Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus are not the same structure. It's a slim possibility but it's there. Also, we have evidence from species that are within the same phylogenetic bracket that lack feathers, like hadrosaurs. I'm not saying the current picture is accurate, or even likely, just that it can't be proven inaccurate (unlike, say, a featherless Graciliraptor). MMartyniuk (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The quill-less image had other problems, for example a short tail and quadrupedal posture, so I have replaced it with one that fixes those issues and adds quills. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This article meets the criteria needed to become a "good article"; it's well written, factually accurate, and cites a large number of reliable sources. Based on the guidelines set by Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles), this page is a good article. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, no comments at all? Any nitpicking is appreciated, since we'll take this to FAC afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:GAREV, only registered editors are allowed to open and conduct GA reviews. Unfortunately, that means that this review cannot proceed, and is being closed, with the nomination returned to the GA reviewing pool. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1, I would like to suggest that you register and get an account, but also that you gain a few months of editing experience before you attempt your next review with that account. (It is the rare article indeed that has no typos or grammatical issues, and I see no sign that it was checked for close paraphrasing, words to watch, image licensing, or that the article accurately represented its source material.) Not that I have any reason to doubt the authors, but that the reviewer needs to check all of the good article criteria. Sorry, FunkMonk; this will have to wait for a qualified reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, I'd prefer a review with suggestions over a rubber-stamp pass. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heterodontosaurus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel sorry about the GA1 review of this article, but GA2 by me is surely gonna meet the standards! Here we go! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! My co-nominator will be back on Monday, so I might fix some of these in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dito, thanks for your review, much appreciated! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• ...the Early Jurassic period, 200–190 million years ago Should it not be 190-200? Also in Palaeoelcology.

I don't think so; it appeared 200 mya, and died out 190 mya. So it existed 200–190 mya. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, seems I got it wrong. My apologies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Convert templates needed in the lead.
• HEY, the whole article needs convert templates!

Yeah, just noticed yesterday... FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think all have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Description

• The most complete skeleton, SAM-PK-1332, belonged to an individual measuring about 1.18 m in length My personal feeling after reading this was like, are you describing the individual (or more appropriately the specimen) the skeleton must have depicted or someone who has the skeleton in their collection? I know it is the former, just hinting at a reword.

Hehe, a pretty short palaeontologist, then. Added animal, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, are you sure the palaeontologist was not an ALIEN? ;D Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Link vertebral,

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• indicates that Heterodontosaurus could grow substantially larger – up to a length of 1.75 m and a body mass of nearly 10 kg. I think it would be better to say "could have grown" and "and with a body mass".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think "caudal" and "gracile" are a bit difficult to understand.

Replaced gracile with slender, but caudal vertebra just means tail vertebra, and tail is already mentioned in the sentence... FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is fine to link "trapezoid" but is it that fine to link "parallelogram"? Rather, "elliptical" (under Skull and dentition) deserves a link.

I'm not sure, "elliptical" is not linked in most articles, including other dinosaur FAs? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay leave elliptical, but is the parallelogram link needed? I don't have much idea about dinosaur articles, so you should decide this. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say we need to link parallelogram. Do you have any examples of FA articles where this is not linked? It's linked in Song dynasty, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you must know better, let's keep the parallelogram link. Thanks for telling me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• The skull of Heterodontosaurus was relatively small but robustly built; it was 108 mm long in the holotype specimen (SAM-PK-K337) When did you first mention this holotype specimen or its code explicitly? Oh, I just found it under Discovery. But it should be first explained here, not in Discovery.

Not sure what you mean, the section about the skull is already before discovery? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I linked "holotype" at its first appearance. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now. Perhaps I thought it had not been properly introduced, but no problems now.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Duplicate link : "upper temporal fenestra"

Can't find the second link. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems the links "lower temporal fenestra" and "upper temporal fenestra" go for the same destination... so the latter becomes a duplink. So I think the latter should be deleted. Saw such a case for the first time.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, these are to separate skull openings, and two separate terms. How should the reader know that the second is explained in the linked article of the first? I would keep both, as it can really help the reader to understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think this duplink must be spared. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discovery

• Clarification is needed for the "clarification needed" templates. I am sure everything is well explained.

All removed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• during the 1961-1962 British-South African expedition to South Africa and Basutoland (former name of Lesotho) I think it is better to write "the British-South African expedition to South Africa and Basutoland (former name of Lesotho) in 1961-1962".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• "South Africa" could be linked here just as it is linked in the lead

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Link described, maxilla

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• The genus name refers to the differentiated dentition, which is unusual for an ornithischian dinosaur, Repetition? Why not just say "its unusual dentition"?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• This could only removable with a diamond saw, which damaged the specimen I can not make head or tail of this line!

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Albert Santa Luca?

Mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Classification

• Duplink: ornithischian

Removed second. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Heterodontosauridae was defined as a clade by Sereno in 1998 and 2005, and the group shares skull features such as three or fewer teeth in each premaxilla, caniniform teeth followed by a diastema, and a jugal horn below the eye Many terms need explanation here.

All are explained in the description section, though, why repeat? FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I must have been absent-minded. My apologies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Many genera have been referred to... For instance?

Everything shown in the cladogram, is it necessary to repeat? FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, my apologies. I never seem to look at cladograms! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Link Late Triassic, Early Jurassic, crown (teeth)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Palaeobiology

• Duplink:sexual dimorphism, Echinodon (Diet and task function)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Richard Butler? Actually there are so many names in this article that I am tired of pointing them out, please check for any instances I might have missed out where you have not identified the persons.

All done, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• This surface indicates that food procession was achieved by forwards/backwards movements of the jaws I think "the back and forth movement" or "forward-and-backward" reads better. There are several instances of this.

Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Link aestivation

Already linked at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I missed it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• While most researchers now consider Heterodontosaurus a bipedal runner, Vague? Such vagueness might have occurred in some other lines as well.

Added an additional source, a recent review, to back this up further. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks stronger now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

• Link Lower Jurassic, conspecific

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's all from my first reading. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice, I've left a few issues for my co-nominator, Jens Lallensack, who I think can address them better. Should be easy to find the issues I've left; every bulleted sentence followed by another bullet instead of my answer... FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sainsf, I think we have addressed all issues by now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just two to go. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok great, I gave my comments above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So, @FunkMonk: and @Jens Lallensack:, you guys have been too amiable and patient. And GA reviewing was never so funny (look at the first comment under Description). So I would not stop this budding FA anymore. Go out into the world, for you are a GA now! Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I took the liberty to put it straight to FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)