Talk:Apex (dinosaur)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sohom Datta talk 01:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Stegosaurus fossil sold for $44.6 million?

• Source: Nicholls, Catherine (18 July 2024). "Stegosaurus skeleton sets auction record, selling for $44.6 million". CNN. Retrieved 19 July 2024.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama (horse)
• Comment: The sale made the news a few days ago (although it wasn't on ITN), I might add an althook later if I have an idea of something more catchy.

Created by Chaotic Enby (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

• (not a full review, although I might come back if it isn't merged) tagged for merging. Queen of Hearts ^talk 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I have closed the merge discussion as no consensus. New and long enough, copyvio checks return fine, interesting hook, QPQ done, LGTM. Queen of Hearts ^talk 02:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Articles like this serve little other purpose than "hey, this specimen was sold for a lot of money, but that's all we can really say about it because it's in a private collection." We at the WP:dinosaur project made List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction exactly for this purpose, to briefly cover such specimens that don't have much else to write about them than their price. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I was still in the process of writing the article, but there is more to say than just the price. The fossil is also interesting for other reasons, such as its excellent preservation of throat armor and skin impressions as well as being the largest Stegosaurus specimen, and spurred a certain amount of controversy due to its price. Plus, the specimen is likely to be displayed in a museum soon, so the merge will have to be reverted back then. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if it ends up in a museum, we usually don't have articles for individual specimens unless they are extremely famous, like Sue (dinosaur), which is hardly the case here either. We also have List of dinosaur specimens with nicknames for cases like this. So no, the tag should not be removed unless that is the outcome of the resulting discussion when further editors comment. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say the tag should be removed, I was just giving my opinion on the matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Being displayed in a museum or having exceptional preservation has next to zero precedent for qualifying a fossil as being worthy of its own article. Any species known from multiple discoveries has a best and a largest specimen. Hundreds of dinosaurs are displayed in museums across the world. Even if it eventually accrued so much scientific and public significance so as to be worth an article, that would still make its current existence WP:TOOSOON because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Apex as it stands is nothing more than a news story. The more of these high profile dinosaur auctions that happen the less and less it's easy to swallow their publicity as grounds for notability. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not argue that being displayed in a museum was what made the specimen notable, it was just a response to the "we can't say much because it's in a private collection" argument. Regarding precedent, other specimens primarily known for being the largest and most expensive of their kind, such as Big John (dinosaur), are considered notable, although again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument either way.
Regarding WP:TOOSOON, that essay is about topics for which it is too soon for them to have gotten coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Apex already has this coverage, and easily meets WP:GNG, so I don't see why notability is in question to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Big John's article itself met significant opposition to being kept. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge, as noted, other than the fact that this skeleton went up for auction, there aren't any notable features to this specific skeleton that would warrant a separate article. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL are very applicable here. There was significant controversy and heavy ARS influence in Big John's edit history, with repeated reversion of edits made the ARS to preserve a specific version of that article that was then used as the only allowable version to be discussed. Apex has not had coverage other than the same type as any other auction piece that an auctioneer wants to hype.--Kevmin § 02:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Some sources described the controversy over the auction already back in May, so there has definitely been non-hype coverage, and WP:NSUSTAINED is very likely already met. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merging, the subject passes WP:GNG individually and has sustained coverage. It can certainly be included on that list page, but I don't think that means it should not have its own page. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sotheby's (51921999492).jpg - Building definitely looks like it was constructed after 1990, which means it will require a freedom of panorama template.
• File:Gilder Center from Theodore Roosevelt Park, 2023.png - Image page needs categories. Also, building was completed in 2014, which means the image needs a freedom of panorama template.

•  Not done, the building has been occupied by Sotheby's since "the 1980's" (Artnet), so is exempt from freedom of panorama concerns.
•  Done, replaced it with the better-quality File:Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation - looking east.jpg to which the template was added.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Chaotic Enby. Per this, the York headquarters were renovated in 2019; this image dates to 2022. Sources like The Architect's Digest don't mention if the facade was included. Epicgenius, being probably the premier author of New York architecture articles, may have a better idea as to the age of the facade.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Chris, thanks for the ping. @Chaotic Enby, according to the NYC Department of City Planning, the Sotheby's building at 1334 York Avenue was actually constructed in 1921 (yeah, I was surprised as well). Though it was clearly renovated at some later point, this specific building has been there since 1921. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  This article pictures a slightly different version of the facade, so there has certainly been some renovation going on. However, this 2013 NYT article already has the current facade, so it wasn't changed during the 2019 renovation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that tracks from what I remember. This building already had that facade in the early 2010s. However, according to Commons, FOP applies only to buildings completed after December 1, 1990; any buildings completed before that are in the public domain, regardless of whether they were renovated at a later point. At least, that's my reading of the Commons page. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Depends how "completed" is defined, but yes, I think {{PD-US-architecture}} will definitely work better. The phrasing of the template is "A building that was substantially constructed or for which the plans were otherwise published before 1 December 1990, is in the public domain in the United States.", and even with the 2019 renovations and the facelift that clearly occurred at some point the "substantial construction" was done well before 1990. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

     Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Looks good. Thanks, Epicgenius, for the help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose review

• "Apex" is a fossilized Stegosaurus specimen discovered in Colorado's Morrison Formation in 2022. - I'd probably mention that Stegosaurus is a genus, or even start with its species being unknown.
• will be exhibited there for four years - This isn't a definite fact. Probably better recast as "planned to be" or "intended to be"; something may happen that results in things changing, like a fire burning down the museum and destroying the specimen.
• three ossicles - per WP:LINKFIRST, ossicle should have been linked in the lede
• Skin impressions from the neck have also been preserved, although the lack of impressions from the lower body means that its sex could not be deduced. - Could not, or cannot? Could suggests that an identification of the animal's sex could be made down the line
• mating-related infections - Would a link to sexually transmitted disease be appropriate here, or are mating-related infections not thought to have been transmitted sexually?
• Apex was put to auction at Sotheby's in New York - You linked "Sotheby's" earlier
• At the time of the auction, the fossil was mounted on a custom steel armature, in an attack pose. The missing bones were replaced by sculpted and 3D-printed replicas, including mirrored versions of existing material. - Quite short. I'd merge this with the previous paragraph.
• In a Chicago Tribune opinion, - As a newspaper, Chicago Tribune should be in italics.
• Starting on December 8, the fossil will be on public display for four years, after which it will be replaced by a cast. - This should be updated after December 8.
• Field Museum of Natural History - Is this different than the Field Museum quoted above? If not, I'd put the full title at full mention and then just refer to the museum as "Field Museum" here.
• As the specimen might not be accessible in the future, concerns have been raised over conducting research on a privately owned, loaned fossil. The matter was described by Stuart Sumida, now president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, as "a new gray area", with the society's ethics committee due to provide a recommendation in early spring. - Not sure if we need to update Sumida's position. Also, per WP:SEASON, "early spring" should be replaced by "early 2025".

•  Done, reworded it as ""Apex" is a fossilized specimen of an unknown species in the genus Stegosaurus. Should species and genus be linked? I would do so, but am afraid of MOS:SOB concerns.
•  Done, changed it to "is planned to be exhibited".
•  Semi-done, I removed the link entirely, as the article at ossicles talks about the unrelated ear bones in mammals. Surprisingly, Stegosaurus itself doesn't described the ossicles in detail, otherwise I would have linked to the relevant section there. Could Stegosauria#Armor and ornamentation be a relevant link target?
•  Done, the source says "impossible to know", so I changed it to "cannot".
•  Not sure: not clear if they are STDs or infections caused by wounds during mating.
•  Done, unlinked.
•  Done, merged.
•  Done
• C Will be done, same with "Sophie, which is currently the most complete Stegosaurus skeleton on public display" which will also have to be updated to "Sophie, which was before Apex the most complete [...]"
•  Done, unlinked the second mention and moved the full title to the first.
•  Done, reverted to the previous wording and replaced "early spring" by "early 2025".

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• As the animal was discovered in the United States, sold in the United States, and bought by an American, per Wikipedia:NATIONALTIES we should use American English and an MM-DD-YYYY date order.
• (ec) Earwig indicates a few potential concerns. "privately owned land in Moffat County near the town of Dinosaur, Colorado" could definitely be recast. " a large, robust adult," could also be paraphrased, and perhaps some of the descriptors of the individuals involved.
• Spotcheck (based off this version)

• 1b: Supports "The animal to which it belonged was a large, robust adult, with signs of rheumatoid arthritis ... indicating an advanced age". I am concerned whether this is sufficiently paraphrased from the source's "The skeleton belonged to a large, robust adult and there was evidence of rheumatoid arthritis, indicating that it lived to an advanced age"
• 4b: Source doesn't like my adblocker. Pulling it from the Internet Archive, it supports most of the sentence, though it doesn't name Cooper. I'm assuming that's in the other source
• 7b: I note that the source mentions a display at Sotheby's gallery, as well as the fact that the purchase also included "a copy of the dinosaur’s scan data and a full license to use its 3D data.", which may be relevant to include. Supports information it's used for.
• 13b: Supports. I note the paraphrasing has been limited to reordering the sentence... may be worth revisiting to make sure that no accidental copyvios occur.
• 19: Supports.

• Please be consistent in your use of ISSN for periodicals.
• Please be consistent in your use of Internet Archive.
• Not a GA criterion, but I note that the capitalization in article titles is inconsistent. Should you decide to continue to FA, that will need to be fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Just going to note for future reference that the nominator has expressed concern about the above three points in the Wikipedia Discord. I am going to explicitly indicate that these are not pass-or-fail recommendations, but intended to help the nominator prepare better articles in the future (same reason I didn't italicize Chicago Tribune myself when reviewing).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done? I fixed the spelling variations I found, are there any others left?
•  Mostly done, reworded to "in Moffat County, Colorado, on private land near the town of Dinosaur", and removed the "large, robust" part entirely as it wasn't necessary. Not sure about the descriptions of the individuals, as they're pretty much job titles.
• Spotcheck
  • 1b:  Done, rewritten to "The animal to which it belonged was elderly, as attested by signs of rheumatoid arthritis such as the fusion of the sacral bones." The fact that it was large is already mentioned three paragraphs above.
  • 4b: Yep, it is in the other source (1d).
  • 7b:  Semi-done, I added the mention of the scan data, but the display at Sotheby's gallery appears to be the same as the one previously mentioned.
  • 13b:  Done, slightly reworded to the fossil was mounted on a steel armature, and positioned in an attacking stance. I don't think emphasizing "custom" is ideal as an armature for a Stegosaurus of a yet unseen size will pretty certainly have to be custom-made.
•  Done, all periodicals have one now.
•  Pending, technically not a GA criterion, but I summoned IAbot and it should archive everything in a few hours of backlog.
•  Question: Should I change the capitalization from that used in the sources themselves? I can do it if needed, just wanting to be sure.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• To answer your question, yes. Sentence case is generally found in APA, whereas title case is more common in MLA; WP:CITESTYLE asks that we be consistent. That being said, it's not a GA criterion, and after your current fixes this article meets the criteria and I'll be promoting momentarily. If you want any more help/discussion on this, feel free to reach out to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion

Overall, rather well done. Will do a spotcheck after I post these comments.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I'll try to address the comments today. I hesitated a bit about including Sumida's new position, there's already a rewording in the edit history that doesn't include it, so that should be easy to revert to. I think the MM-DD-YYYY order is already in use, or have I missed it somewhere? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I ran the script again. There were quite a few where DD-MM-YYYY was used.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The only things left are things that aren't required under the GA criteria. As such, I will be happy to promote this article as a GA. If you have any questions/concerns or want help preparing this for a try at FAC, let me know. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.