Wikipedia:Peer review/Beibeilong/archive1

Beibeilong

Took interest for Baby Louie so I decided I'll go and expand the article. Now that the article has grown quite a bit I'll try to get it to FA status. Feedback is greatly appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can get time to review it, though regular peer review is always archived quickly, so WP:paleopr is maybe more reliable if that happens. At first glance, there is a bunch of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'll give it a try. I was sure there was paleo peer review but couldn't find it, much appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Watch out for WP:Image sandwiching, where text is squeezed between two images.

  I have tried to split up the text so that it doesn't look so sandwiched. Maybe downsizing one of the images could work. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Nearly complete Macroelongatoolithus nest (specimen 41HV003-16)" I'm sure it's from source, but how come the identity in the caption is different from in the Commons image description? Should be modified there too if the sources say otherwise.

  Added a proper description and also a renaming request. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if it's necessary to have a single subsection in the history section, seems redundant.

  Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Specimen numbers should not really be bolded, not sure why this became a thing in the first place.

  Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs under history are very dense, could be split further.

  Now split, maybe this will do. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Beibeilong estimated size" Specify adult size.

  Specified. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Since only juveniles are known, I think it would make sense to swap the placement of the two life restorations, so that the very hypothetical adult goes in the section about theorised ontogeny, and the embryo goes to description where embryonic anatomy is discussed.

  Changed placements. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• To prevent image sandwiching, the photo of Zhang Fengchen could maybe moved down to the Paleoenvironment section which is very empty anyway?

  Changed, though I was hoping to do an environmental illustration. Could take some time. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Could still be room for it, perhaps split the second, huge paragraph under Paleoenvironment for more space for an image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have just split them. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Link "oviraptorosaur" at first mention in article body.

  Linked. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "became notoriously renowned" I think only either notorious or renowned is needed.

  Removed notoriously. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "featured in the cover article" On the cover.

  Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "was ultimately acquired" What is meant by ultimately here? It wasn't the final destination after all.

  Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "discovered between December 1992 and early 1993 by farmer Mr. Zhang Fengchen" I would put this before the part about it being notorious.

  Now changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Mr. Zhang Fengchen at the excavation locality of Baby Louie" State he is the discoverer, "Mr." is unnecessary.

  Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "for as much as 12 years" About 12 years?

  Changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "in December 2013 the specimen was finally repatriated to China, permanently resting at the Henan Geological Museum with specimen number/catalogue HGM 41HIII1219" But this reads as if the entire nest specimen goes by this number?

  Hmm... I think I'll just remove the specimen number part and leave it to the last paragraph for better explanation. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "from inside of one of the eggs" Of is unnecessary.

  Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• If there was room, it could perhaps be cool to use that photo with the crocodilian embryos from the supplementals somewhere.

  Now added to the ontogeny section, hope it doesn't look that sandwiched. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should be consistent after the discovery section whether you use the specimen number or nickname Baby Louie.

  Changed the "Beibeilong (HGM 41HIII1219)" from reproduction to just Baby Louie. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• "The holotype, HGM 41HIII1219, is assigned to Baby Louie" Odd wording, could say "Baby Louie was assigned the specimen number HGM 41HIII1219 and designated as the holotype" or something like that?

  Corrected. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "based on the large Macroelongatoolithus eggs" Could say "extrapolated from" to make clear that this is conjectural.

  Now changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "It has an estimated adult length" Past tense would make more sense.

  Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• More anatomical terms, like premaxilla and surangular etc., could be explained in parenthesis.

  Added explanations for them, as well as for others. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• The first paragraph under skull could also be split in two.

  Done. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Embryonic stage of Baby Louie" Or of Beibeilong? You use Baby Louie as if it's a taxon.

  Corrected to Beibeilong. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Skeletal diagrams featuring several members of Caenagnathidae" Link Caenagnathidae in caption.

  Linked. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Beibeilong holotype egg block, showing number of preserved Macroelongatoolithus eggs" Link Macroelongatoolithus.

  Likewise linked. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Zhang Fengchen at the excavation locality of Baby Louie" Mention in the caption he was one of the discoverers.

  Added mention. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Nearly complete Macroelongatoolithus nest (specimen 41HV003-16)" State this shows the complete form of such a nest arrangement.

  Now stated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• As a non-native English speaker, I often send articles to the WP:guild of copyeditors before FAC to make the text smoother, probably good to list it before a nomination.

  I see very useful! I'll give it a shoot. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• As an aside, very nice to see this article I made many weeks after the taxon was described because no one else cared finally expanded fully!

  I personally think that giant oviraptorosaurs are very interesting species, and their skeletal remains are quite sparse in the fossil record so it's surprising that no one wanted to start the article. I'm glad you liked it! 🤏. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also like oviraptorosaurs in general, but they get very little attention here. But at least I got Nemegtomaia to FAC hehe. Perhaps we could work on some more of their articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some reviewers indicated that the embryo restoration[2] showed pronated hands. I think it could be explained by the angle of the arm, but if you disagree, perhaps you could find a way to edit it.

  I think it's fine considering that the embryo is basically squashed by the egg structure, though the forearm should be less "buffed". PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• " The frontal was rather domed with formed the upper border" What is meant by "with"? "Which"?

Actually it was "and", small mistake. Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• " last bone in contribute to the orbit" Last bone contributing to the orbit.

Corrected. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The quadratojugal was tall and nearly triangular bone that is joined by the jugal." You change from past to present tense, should be consistent, and it seems you use past tense mostly. Check throughout for this to make it consistent across the article.

I'll go and try make this uniform. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Also define terms like dentary, lacrimal, maxilla, etc.

Now defined. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• " The sacrum (hip vertebrae)" I think you could clarify it is a structure formed by the fused hip vertebrae or similar.

Explained. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "another feature of Beibeilong" Distinct feature? Goes without saying it's a feature of this animal, but clarify if it's unique.

Clarified. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "was relatively skinny and rod-like shaft" Was a?

Added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• ", unique trait of Beibeilong" A unique.

Changed to "an". PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "identified as belonging to the oospecies Macroelongatoolithus xixiaensis" Perhaps clarify what this means. The article stats for example "representing the eggs of giant caenagnathid oviraptorosaurs."

Added a small note, not sure if this will do. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Have you searched Google scholar and JSTOR for adittional sources? If you don't have access, you can request them at WP:RX.

Already did and it seems that Beibeilong isn't particularly a well-known taxon...... PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• What is "Highlight", citation 3? Could need a more complete citation if it's some sort of publication.

It's the Highlights (magazine). I tried to make the citation as complete as possible. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

More will probably be asked at FAV, such as issue number, publisher, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• You could give a general description of how a caenagnathid looked like under description, that they had feathers, were bipedal, etc.?

Now added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think the general reader would be unsure what a caenagnathid even is, could perhaps define what features set them apart and why Beibelong is considered one under classification.

Added a brief explanation using oviraptorids. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "this element remained with a consistent size" Retained a consistent size?

Changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "was an strictly edentulous" Remove "an".

Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Accordingly, caenagnathids had teeth when young and were progressively lost during their growth." But is there any actual proof of this? It seems they don't even consider the possibility that there were never teeth at all...

The evidence that they provide are those features in the dentary of some caenagnathids. Maybe removing the "Accordingly" for "According to the team" would make it sound less conclusive. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Year, cautious language that attribute controversial claims to specific authors is a good thing. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems you use both US (paleo instead of palaeo etc.) and UK (behaviour instead of behavior etc.) English, should be consistent throughout.

I'll be checking this across the article. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "without an external covering" What is meant by covering?

Any kind of substrate. Now added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder where that leaves the nesting Nemegtomaia restoration I did... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That statement by the authors may refer to this type of nest configuration [3]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• "likely sat on the central area devoid of eggs." Nothing about how they could have used their feathers for cover instead of the body itself?

The authors didn't discuss feathering covering as far as I'm aware. Only body-contact heat transfer. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "that were discovered from the Gaogou Formation" In the.

Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Beibeilong was a notably large caenagnathid and among the largest oviraptorosaurs, estimated at 7.5 m (25 ft) long" Should also be clear in the intro here that's a size extrapolated from the embryo.

Stated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Beibeilong remains have been recovered from the Gaogou Formation located in the Xixia Basin" This reads as if there are more specimens than just that nest. Could maybe say "Beibeilong is known from" to make it more general.

Yeah I agree. Now changed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Say a bit about the environment in the intro?

Oh I thought is wasn't necessary as other featured articles never include this mention in the lead, except for Tarbosaurus I think. Now added. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainly because there is usually not much to say that it significant enough to mention in the intro hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• "dinosaurs of the Gaogou Formation paleoecosystem feed mainly on" Fed on, past tense.

Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Caenagnathids is duplinked under Paleoenvironment.

Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "and by extend the extinction" I think it should be "extent".

Corrected. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• "suggests that an external force removed it from its underlying egg to the eggs at the top" Any suggestion as to what force?

Not sure, the authors only mentioned an external force. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• That should be all from me, after this is fixed I think you can send it to GAN while you wait for the copy editors, and then it's probably ready for FAC after that (where I can give my support since I already reviewed it with FAC in mind). The main challenge is probably to get the technical wording understandable enough for most lay readers, and make the text flow well in general.

Highly appreciated! 👍 I'll be checking small issues and send it to GAN as soon as I'm free. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes look good, and I answered some comments above. I think only the English variation and tense consistency issues are missing now? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed some minor inconveniences. I think now it's ready to go for GAN. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this is nominated at GAN, I am closing this PR. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)