Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Viatkogorgon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2021 [1].

Viatkogorgon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a stem-mammal (formerly known as "mammal-like reptiles"), specifically a gorgonopsian, the first group of animals that evolved saber-teeth. This is a pretty inconspicuous member of the group, and since it was only named in 1999, it doesn't have the same kind of heavy taxonomic baggage as other, more famous gorgonopsians, and was therefore easier to write about, so most if not all the relevant literature is covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Changed to 4.0, I think 3.0 was used earlier on the site. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Viatkogorgon 2 .png does the own work claim cover the human figure shape? Reverse image search indicates that the same drawing occurs elsewhere on the web. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's by NASA, from the pioneer plaque, therefore PD US government, I've now tagged it as such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Site works for me now, the image is figure 8 in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While they are similar, each have their own, mutually exclusive qualities. The one in the taxobox has less glare, so looks visually better, but it is also angled a bit, so the bones get foreshortened. The one under description is uglier, but is more head on, so the bones are more visible. One day we might get better photos so both can be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do this in a couple chunks

  • Was Ivakhnenko involved in the discovery of the holotype, since it was named after him and he seems to be active in this field since he described the assigned specimen?
None of the sources say anything about the circumstances around its excavation, or about why he was honoured, unfortunately. I think he was just important in the particular field. There could possibly be some sources about field work in Russian out there, but nothing I can find or read. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more poorly developed greater trochanter (a site for muscle attachment)" - would greater trochanter itself be a better link?
Linked fully, not sure what happened there... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood. " - sentence fragment
Seems a period was added during the copy-edit, changed back to "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood, Viatkogorgon and Nochnitsa expand the knowledge of gorgonopsians from the middle Permian or earliest late Permian of Laurasia" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "articular bone has become the malleus ear bone.[12])." - stray ). at the end
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to all be reliable and well-formatted.

Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonexpert support. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over...

  • Not sure that Saber-toothed cat is the best target article for sabre-teeth but not sure of other options here.
Yeah, I've argued for years on the talk page of that article that the title should be changed to something more inclusive, because "saber toothed cat" in modern usage really only refers to members of the Machairodontinae, (which therefore already have an article), whereas the article covers the saber-toothed niche/ecomorph as a whole, regardless of whether the bearers are "cats" or not, and that is also how it is mainly covered in the literature. But most non-palaeontology nerds seem to be attached to this popular term, so it has been hard to get a sensible vote through. But also due to the lack of an alternative term which is anywhere as catchy. "Saber-toothed ecomorph" is just hard to sell. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think anything is actionable at this point I guess - beyond the scope of this FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the assumption the complete specimen is a young individual and a larger (though poorly preserved) skeleton is found, there hasn't been some sort of assumption of larger dimensions of the critter?
Nothing, and I'm pretty surprised the larger specimen has only been mentioned in passing in one paper. Perhaps it will come when the postcranium is redescribed. A problem with this taxon is that the holotype skeleton (seemingly with a cast of the skull) is on a perpetual tour around Europe along with other Russian specimens, so hard to study... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they were abundant, they were morphologically conservative. - "conservative" a bit jargony. Better to write in plain English what it means here
Tried with "morphologically similar", the best fit I could think of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Varied little in (basic/overall) (shape/morphology)"? 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to implement a variation of that in my next round of edits. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are no assumptions about what the paleoenvironment was at all?
I'll see if I can find more, but the article says, cited to the most recent source (2018) "These mudstones were possibly deposited from suspension in standing water bodies on floodplains or shallow ephemeral lakes, that remained flooded for short periods of time, but the exact environment has not yet been determined." FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit of context to that section, but there is not much more to come by. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise not seeing any deal-breakers. Prose is dense but many terms and phrases are as plain as they can be. Comprehensive and within striking distance of FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to think of what to replace "conservative" with, and have answered the other points, sadly with no solutions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

I already had a look during the Peer Review, and here are my comments for the rest of the article:

  • an intercentrum (placed between the centra, or "bodies", of the vertebrae) – Not sure if this is correct. Primitively, a reptile vertebra consist of three elements: The neural arch, and below it, the intercentrum in front and the centrum behind. Those are often still retained in the atlas and axis. I would explain it like this: "placed in front of the centrum" (and avoid "body").
I've removed that entire sentence, as it didn't seem to be so unique, and hard to understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the atlas (the second neck vertebra) – The atlas is usually the first (C1) and the axis the second (C2). There may be an additional small ossification, the proatlas, in front of the neural arch of the atlas, but that doesn't count as a vertebra as far as I know.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in other gorgonopsians, the atlas (the second neck vertebra) had isolated neural arches, … – I think this is common everywhere, not just in gorgonopsians?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and lacked integration with the centrum of the axis (the third neck vertebra). – I can't understand this.
Removed, the source didn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The zygapophyses (the articular processes that connected adjacent vertebrae) of the axis were horizontal but became more vertical, beginning by the third vertebra – As you are speaking about all of the neck vertebrae, maybe say "were horizontal in the axis but became more vertical beginning by the third vertebra"?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and were vertical in side view, though they were inclined rearwards, – are they vertical, or are they inclined? This is contradictory. Do you possibly mean "though their rear margin was inclined"?
Changed back to pre copy-edit wording: "The neural spines became somewhat taller beginning at the second third part of the thoracic region, and were vertical in side view, though in the hind part of this region they were inclined rearwards and their front edge became convex (showing the transition from thoracic to lumbar vertebrae)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The position of the zygapophyses would have restricted sideways curve at the base of the tail – can't follow here
Changed "curve" to "movement". Source says "curvature". FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason you give angles in degrees for the tail vertebrae but not for other vertebrae? If this should be consistent, I think that just removing them would be an option since the text is already quite detailed.
It's the only places it was given, but removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the early evolution of gorgonopsia – upper case?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which indicated an initial stage of swimming adaptations – what does "initial" mean here? That gorgonopsians had these "swimming" adaptations ancestrally?
I'm pretty sure he's rather implying it was on its way to becoming more aquatic, he says "However, certain of its features are either poorly understood or unique. First and foremost, this concerns some characteristics of the locomotor apparatus that suggest an initial stage of adaptation for swimming". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue we can't know if it was on its way to become more aquatic; this would imply that it would have become even more aquatic if evolution had more time. But we can possibly say it was more aquatic than other gorgonopsians. I would simply get rid of the "initial" here. Maybe this can be formulated much simpler, e.g. "Some of these features could have been adaptations for swimming, while other features where …"
Yeah, that's what I think Tatarinov was arguing, though, reflecting outdated views of evolution, that these were "steps" towards an end goal. I've removed "initial" for now, to not add too much retroactive correction. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • while other features were consistent with those commonly seen in large predators of the Permian. – All large predators of the Permian considered? Sounds suspicious, but ok if the source makes this claim.
He just says "Other features of Viatkogorgon are characteristic of the common gorgonopian adaptive pattern of a large Late Permian predator". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would write something like "while other features were characteristic for gorgonopsians in general", seems to be closer to what the source says?
Said "those commonly seen in its group" to make it unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He found the unique gastralia to have been acquired secondarily (convergent evolution), – can this be better explained? Does it mean that gastralia are absent in other therapsids?
Tatarinov believed Viatkogorgon was unique in having gastralia, but since later sources only say it's a "rare" feature, I'm not sure what to do. He didn't elaborate on it either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just remove that sentence, don't think it added much, and it is confusing and badly explained even in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the next sentence says "theriodonts". But this is already in the next paragraph; maybe that information can come earlier?
Think it was solved by removing the earlier mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, again concerning the sentence above: The section is about motion, how do the gastralia fit inside? Are you thinking about the motions involved in breathing?
This is actually so odd that I didn't state it outright in the article, but Tatarinov apparently thought the presence of gastralia were in themselves indicative of swimming. He wrote: "The affinity of Viatkogorgon for aquatic environments is corroborated by the presence of gastralia", but without elaborating why. It of course seems strange, considering all the terrestrial animals that have gastralia. I imagine he had some unorthodox/old fashioned ideas that will probably be abandoned in an eventual redescription of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, in general, try to make it more clear that these are hypotheses proposed by this single author. With writing "Tatarinov hypothesised that gastralia were adaptations for swimming", I think it would be ok to include it; other possibly dubious or outdated statements are included as well in any case.
Said "Tatarinov hypothesized these features to be adaptations for swimming" after the mention of gastralia and other features in the motion section. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antón stated in 2013 that while the skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically similar to those of reptiles, their stance was far more upright than in synapsids, like pelycosaurs, which were more sprawling. – I can't follow this one. Gorgonopsians are synapsids? It is confusing that you seem to compare with reptiles and pelycosaurs at the same time.
Changed to "more primitive synapsids", if that's better. The source says "The post-cranial skeleton is again essentially reptilian, but it reveals a far more upright stance than in more primitive, sprawling synapsids such as the pelycosaurs.". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With "reptilian", he appears to refer to the primitive reptilian condition (not reptilians as a whole)? If so, maybe make this clear?
Changed to "post-cranial skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically reptilian". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tail muscles (such as the caudofemoralis) were important in flexion of the hindlimb – Shouldn't it be "retraction" instead of "flexion"?
That's what Antón says, "As in other reptiles, the musculature of the tail, in particular the caudo-femoral muscles, was a very important part of the flexion of the hind limb, so that the tail was not there merely for balance, as has become the case in mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we need to stick with the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their feet were more symmetrical than those of reptiles, – which reptiles? I assume lepidosauromorphs? There are certainly reptiles with symmetrical pedes.¨
Antón just says "The reduction in their phalangeal formula compared to the primitive reptilian condition is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals.". What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help to make clear that he is referring to the primitive reptilian condition, not reptiles in general.
Said "Their feet were more symmetrical compared to the reptilian condition". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • making contact with the ground more efficient, – I don't think that makes sense. I would argue that, in slow moving animals, ground contact is longer and therefore more efficient because muscles have more time to work. Maybe say "allowing for a more rapid locomotion" or something instead, depending on what the source says?
As above, the source only says "is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the term "efficient" is highly ambiguous (what does it mean? Faster locomotion? Energy efficient?), but is commonly used like this in older literature; nothing we can do about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he is probably oversimplifying a lot because it's just a summary of studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • or the early Lopingian epoch of the late Permian. – Lopingian and "late Permian", isn't that the same? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "early late Permian", but the source uses "early Lopingian". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack, though some of them have not been resolved, pending further input. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • You and I differ on this, as I recall, but I prefer using full first names when possible. It can be a real pain to try to figure them out after the fact.
I wouldn't say I disagree, but it can be hard to be consistent (which is often demanded) since some papers don't provide the full names of the authors, but I've managed to find them here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. It's not required by any measure, but the ampersands look nice and do a good job of breaking up the author names.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: Any identifying number, such as a DOI, ISSN, or OCLC?
I believe the Russian Paleontological Journal is now defunct, so no such luck as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not defunct apparently, but still can't find those identifiers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Paleontological Journal, there are at least ISSNs. But it's not a big deal—the fact that there is an article on the journal means that it will be easy enough for an interested person to figure out where copies are. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to add the rest, but just don't know how to find them... FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4: Ditto.
Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5: Ditto. Also, it looks like the link links to only an abstract.
This one I could find an ISSN for, but removed link to abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10: Same as #2 & #4.
Nothing I could find, also that journal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antón 2013: Is the "1st ed." necessary? That is, is there a second edition that this is distinct from? If yes, why is the first edition being used instead of the second?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. FunkMonk, nits above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One comment above, but nothing that needs to be dealt with. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Kindly done by Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the skull alone is 14 cm (5.5 in), making Viatkogorgon a relatively small gorgonopsian". Why is the size based on the skull alone?
Rejigged the text so that this isn't implied. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The assigned specimen". I assume this refers to the larger specimen but why "assigned"?
Any specimen that is found to group within an already defined species is assigned to that species. Made it clearer in the intro by using the term earlier, when that specimen is first mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recurved". Can this term be linked?
No article to link, but explained it as "(curved backwards)". FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tatarinov only described the skull of Viatkogorgon in the 1999 article, wherein he also named the new scylacosaur genus Kotelcephalon, because the article was restricted in volume but preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004." I am not sure what you are saying here - the 1999 article only described the skull as he had a limited number of words but followed up with a further article in 2004?
Yeah, what you said, I think the sentence was maybe oversimplified, added a comma and a "he", does the following look clearer? ", because the article was restricted in volume, but he preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004" FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and stated a detailed description of the postcranium". I think that "stated that" would be clearer - or is leaving out "that" AmerEng?
Added, not sure if there is any variation in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2019, the Russian paleontologist Yulia A. Suchkova and Golubev". "paleontologists"?
Made it plural, though I wrote it this way because Golubev was already presented earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stated that despite the small size of the then recently named therocephalian Gorynychus from Kotelnich, it would have shared its niche as a dominant predator with Viatkogorgon. They supported this interpretation with the fact that of all the Permian localities of Eastern Europe, bones with carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Sundyr-1 locality, from where a Gorynychus species is known." I am not clear what you are saying here. Does the fact that carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Gorynychus area imply that there are no known victims of Viatkogorgon - or that Viatkogorgon consumed their victims including bones - and why does this suggest that Gorynychus was co-dominant? Also, I see that the Gorynychus article says that it was wolf size. I do not see a size estimate for Viatkogorgon in the Description section, but in the illustration it looks to me smaller than a wolf, whereas you say Viatkogorgon was larger. I am a bit confused, but that may be because I have misread something.
Removed a large portion of this text, because it seems to be larely irrelevant here at second look (more relevant to Gorynychus). The species of Gorynychus that lived alongside Viatkogorgon was smaller than the one stated to be "the size of a wolf" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that Viatkogorgon was the dominant predator in the area even though it was so small?
Sentence simplified so it doesn't say that anymore, it is implied in the source, but not stated directly. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not fully read the detailed analysis of the skeleton as I am too ignorant to understand it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look over the weekend. If anything about the skeleton is particularly hard to understand, let me know. The paragraph about size shouldn't be too technical. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the skeleton is very hard for a non-expert to understand because it has several words in each sentence which only an expert would know. This cannot be helped as you could not describe the skeleton without using technicalities. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a problem may be that most of them are explained under history, where they are first mentioned. So it is hoped the reader would remember the meaning of some of the terms by then, but yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask. Addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Viatkogorgon/archive1&oldid=1054956239"