Talk:Lurdusaurus

List of contemporaneous dinosaurs moved to Talk

Moving this to Talk --

- Contemporaneous dinosaurs -

Lurdusaurus was contemporaenous with the bizarre large theropod Suchomimus, which some believe to be synonymous with the slightly earlier Baryonyx from England, and with the sympatric Ouranosaurus, notable for its tall-spined vertebrae. The remains of an as-yet unnamed allosauroid theropod have also been found in the Aptian of Niger. Other contemporaneous dinosaurs (not known from the same location as Lurdusaurus) include the large allosauroid theropod Acrocanthosaurus, known to have had tall-spined vertebrae, the basal iguanodont Tenontosaurus, the dromaeosaurid Deinonychus and the large nodosaurid ankylosaur Sauropelta, all from North America, the basal iguanodont Muttaburrasaurus, the large-eyed basal ornithopod Leaellynasaura and a possible genus of allosauroid known only from an astragalus, all from Australia, and yet another basal iguanodont, Probactrosaurus, the primitive ceratopsian Psittacosaurus and the poorly known and taxonomically problematic large theropod Chilantaisaurus, all from East Asia.

-- Doesn't seem appropriate to include this list of various other dinosaurs in the article, especially considering that many of these aren't even from same area as Lurdusaurus. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Probably we can do better than this; I like the suggestion of adding fauna which Lurdusaurus would actually have interacted with. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That, specifically, seems reasonable to me. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like that is usually put into a paleoecology section, like here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Albertosaurus#Paleoecology FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

The first part says its shorter than Spinosaurus but a similar mass (6t). But to my reconing spino was 9t (mabye more if the hump theory is correct). Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Taquet originally estimated a length of 30 ft (9m), 40% shorter than Spinosaurus, the longest carnivorous dinosaur known to date, but probably with around the same mass, i.c 5.5 tonnes."

I do not recall that at any time there was such a low figure for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Also, the "40% shorter" seems highly doubtful, and the whole comparison seems out of place. 188.23.157.152 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Macrophyseter (talk · contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

This is my first time as a GA reviewer, so please bear with me.

Comments

Lead

• "...genus of massive and unusually built iguanodont dinosaur..." Personally suggest replacing "built" with "shaped."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Its metacarpals (wrist bones) are fused and reinforced into a large block, and the thumb spike is remarkably enormous..." I think metacarpals and thumb spikes can be split into two sentences.

better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's much better now. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...900 cm (30 ft) long and 200 cm (6 ft 7 in)..." Is there a reason why this is in centimeters and not meters?

I wanted to remain consistent with units and avoid decimals in the lead, and I use 70 cm off the ground later   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it at centimeters would arguably be more inconsistent as you put the same dimensions in meters in Description (without decimals as well). I wouldn't worry about the 70 cm mention, since that would make sense given it's below 100 cm. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discovery

• "She named it "Gravisaurus tenerensis"..." The name should be italicized, even if its a nomen ex dissertationae.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "However, in 1999, before her dissertation was ever published... published the first formal description..." I don't think her thesis was ever published. Also, the current wording makes it read as if Turquet cheated Chabli out, which I highly doubt was the case.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...discovered the remains of an iguanodont..." Specify that this is the holotype specimen.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Description

• Double check that the tenses and comma placements are correct, this goes with every section.

• In the first paragraph, clarify that the measurements are specifically of the holotype unless they are consistent among the genus.

there're so few specimens as it is so the measurements would extend to all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Then I think in this case that's okay. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...but the dentary fragment..." Redundant as it's already mentioned a few lines above in Discovery.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...the dorsal centra are proportionally larger, and have shorter neural spines (which project straight up from the centrum), and less steep transverse processes..." I think the commas can be removed in this case.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink caudal vertebra (Vertebra#Other animals).

done

• "The limbs are exceptionally built..." Elaborate?

The rest of the paragraph elaborates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant that the term "exceptional" in this context wasn't clear to me and can use some elaborating. Perhaps this can be done by using a different adjective (i.e. "robustly"), but if "exceptional" is what the source says, I guess we can just stick with it. Macrophyseter | talk 18:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"exceptionally massive"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The tibia is incredibly short relative to the femur – 777 mm (30.6 in) and 910 mm (36 in)" Confusing wording. Do the measurements refer to the tibia and femur respectively?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is clear enough so this is optional and probably a nitpick, but I personally find it slightly awkward for the "vs." to show up at the given point (But this may be just how I'm used to reading, and others can differ). I think a wording like "...femur – 777 mm (30.6 in) and 910 mm (36 in) respectively..." or a variation would add some smoothness. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The metatarsals were so short that they did not make contact with each other" I would suggest "The metatarsals were too short to make contact with each other" for brevity.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Classification

• "...as a either a derived iguanodont or somewhere intermediate between more basal iguanodonts and more derived hadrosaurs..." The current wording makes the second possibility sound like a redundant rewording of the first. I suggest a rewording to something like "...derived iguanodont or an intermediate between the iguanodonts and the more derived hadrosaurs..."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...still within Styracosterna..." specify that this is a clade.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...new clade "Iguanodontea"..." Quotations are unnecessary.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• The format of the cladograms seems a bit unnecessarily spacious. I would suggest formatting them to be side-by-side, as done in Elasmosaurus and Mosasaurus.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Paleoecology

• Wikilink facultatively (Facultative).

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A gaffe on my end, but it turns out there's a better wikilink for this (Facultative bipedalism). Apologies for the inconvinence. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See Also

• None of the wikilinked dinosaurs appear relevant to this article.

they're all possibly semi-aquatic non-avian dinosaurs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That works. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

All I have for now. I'm glad to have learned about this interesting dinosaur! Macrophyseter | talk 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Some more comments...

• "...and there was likely a fleshy pad to support the weight." (Description) This is optional, but I think mentioning how this is comparable to the foot cushion of elephants would greatly help the reader understand what this means. Macrophyseter | talk 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

source didn't make a comparison with elephants   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Moot point then. Macrophyseter | talk 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. Once all the remaining points are addressed, the article should be good enough to promote to GA. Macrophyseter | talk 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There is a "shrink-wrapped" re~storation[1] I can try to fix if we want to use it (it was removed for that and other reasons). FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Macrophyseter | talk 16:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What else am I missing?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have for the review, All my comments have successfully been addressed (The one about commas and tenses was more of a general reminder than a specific comment) I'll be able to promote this article. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Y

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Y

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Y

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Y

   C. It contains no original research:

   Y

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Y

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Y

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Y

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Y

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Y

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Y

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Y

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass Y

Thanks for getting yet another article to GA! Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)