Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catopsbaatar/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 [1].

Catopsbaatar

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article about a

Very comprehensive, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The most completely preserved skeleton (specimen PM120/107) shown from above as preserved (left), with diagram showing individual bones—first "preserved" is redundant

Ah, yes, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The external appearance of their heads may have been similar to that of rodents. —their… those or its… that

Took "those". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• which are thought to be the same geologic age. —no harm giving the age here too

Added, though I wonder if it will be seen as redundant since it is also stated in the first sentence of the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Djadochtatherium D. catopsaloides, with specimen ZPAL MgM – I/78—I'd prefer Djadochtatherium as D. catopsaloides,

Added comma and "as". I think it was like that before copy edit also. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned a damaged skull missing lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/79, an adult), a skull with partial lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/80), and a molar with a fragment of jaw (ZPAL MgM – I/159 from the Barun Goyot Formation of Khulsan, the only specimen not from Hermiin Tsav) to the species—it's a long way from Kielan-Jaworowska to …species, perhaps rejig

I tried with "Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned other specimens to the species;" which is followed by the list of specimens, still a long sentence, but at least "to the species" is moved back, and the meaning of the following is clear when the reader starts reading. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ulaanbaatar—link

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Catopsbaatar's lower pair of incisors was very strong and compressed sideways. —I'm not sure what pair of incisors… compressed sideways means. The diagram shows them leaning in to each other, is that what it's saying?

What is meant is that the entire pair (as a unit) was flattened, the source only says "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." I reworded to "Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways", is it any clearer? Though the meaning is exactly the same, it may be easier to read this way... FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mammal jaws have been found in the abdomen of a specimen of the small theropod Sinosauropteryx, belonging to Zhangheotherium, which had spurs, —I first read this as saying that Sinosauropteryx belonged to Zhangheotherium perhaps rejig to avoid ambiguity?

Added "; the jaws belonged to". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies, all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Generally suggest scaling up images that include diagrams. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled up some of the diagrams that weren't just line drawings of the photos shown in the same images. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

Reviewing now, more to follow the next days.

Thanks, I've answered a few things below, will fix stuff later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Late Campanian – substages are informal, and therefore are not capitalized per convention. It has to be "late Campanian".

Fixed, was also inconsistent in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It had very robust incisors, and cheek teeth with multiple cusps (for which multituberculates are named). – Multiple cusps are a typical for most mammals, including humans. I think the point is that Multis had a lot of them, which were very characteristically arranged in rows.

What distinguishes multituberculates from other mammals is mentioned under evolution, but the name itself only specially refers to the multiple cusps, not really to any other feature. Kielan-Jaworowska 2004 only says "Lat. multum—much, multus—numerous, tuberculum—tubercle, in reference to the multicusped molar teeth". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, forgot that this is only referring to the name. Though it might be an idea to replace "multiple" with "numerous", which is the translation you cited? That would make clear that there are more than the usual handful of cusps.

Changed to "numerous". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation – correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hermiin Tsav just a locality within the Barun Goyot Formation?

Hermiin Tsav is a locality, but the

Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav is a formation, as far as I can see. See for example the table of formations on page two in this paper:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok I see, though it seems that only Jaworowska is treating the unit as a separate formation, with most dinosaur people only using the locality names, listing them under "Barun Goyot Formation".

It seems the two have increasingly been considered identical, but it seems some writers still retain use of both... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• and the name refers to its similarity to the genus Catopsalis – that was already mentioned with very similar wording in the preceding paragraph.

The first instance refers to the specific name, the second to the generic name (both refer to Catopsalis), but do you think the wording should be more different anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. What you could do is adding "as is the case for the specific name" for extra clarity, but I'm not so sure if this would really be an improvement.

Added just for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to name some nodes in the cladogram?

The original it is based on only lists characters for each node (page 232 here[3]), so I wonder if it would be original synthesis to add clade names, if that's what you're asking. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I would say, the text unambiguously links the node numbers with names. According to p. 228, node 18 is Djadochtatheriidae, and node 9 is Djadochtatheria.

I'll have to ping IJReid for that then, I am pretty much analphabetic when it comes to making cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the cladogram from 1997 is a bit aged? That is already 21 years ago.

I couldn't find any newer ones... Maybe Catopsbaatar is included in cladograms published in more recent descriptions of other genera, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 2001 phylogeny paper only lists families in the cladogram, no genera, so can't really be used either. At a loss here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right and it is even better to keep the original one here, until a revision dealing specifically with this group has been published.

• because the nuchal crest at the back of the head curved inwards at the middle – I'm not sure if all readers will understand, maybe add "creating an indention at the hind margin of the skull when viewed from above" or something.

Not stated specifically in the source, but I remember we discussed this very issue some time ago, so it is probably no problem to make this extra clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The zygomatic arches were strongly expanded to the sides, with the skull width (across the arches) about 85 percent of the skull length – confusing, because you previously indicated that the skull is wider than long due to the nuchal crest.

The most complete, adult specimen has a skull that is longer than it is wide, are you referring to these measurements? "the skull of the juvenile holotype (ZPAL MgM−I/78) is about 53 mm (2.1 inches) long and 56 mm (2.2 inches) wide". The holotype is juvenile and incomplete, which probably explains the discrepancy, which isn't clearly stated in the source, but I think the reader would by then know that the adult, more complete specimen listed firts has the most representative measurement due to those factors (age, completeness). FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my mistake.

Not necessarily, seems it's the source that's inconsistent, if what we concluded is correct, and that it also says that the skull is wider than long if it is measured along the midline only... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• djadochtatheriids had a premaxillary ridge on the boundary between the two. – maybe add that this is visible in ventral aspect, otherwise a bit hard to follow.

Added something to that effect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With four sentences, the bits on the premaxilla seem a bit over-represented and overly detailed compared to other bones.

Removed one sentence which was probably not as necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The suture between its nasal and frontal – not immediately clear where the "its" is referring to, maybe just replace with "the".

Said "the". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The infraorbital foramen (an opening at the lower front of the maxilla) was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three – Not sure, but would "infraorbital foramen" need to be plural here?

Since the sentence also says "lower front of the maxilla" in singular, it wouldn't make sense to have foramen as plural, but I might be inconsistent with plural and singular, but I think many journal descriptions are too. But I mainly refer to paired bones as singular here, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you say that there can be one to three of these foramina per side? Can you really say "The foramen varied in number" instead of "The foramina varied in number"?

Ah, yes, I guess I got confused because the most complete specimen (which is the main focus of the cited source) only has one. Changed to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• dochtatherioids – is this a typo? Otherwise please link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the first "dja" (not sure how that happened), now added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, the I1 (first incisor) is missing? Perhaps worth mentioning just to avoid confusion?

I've added a mention of this, it seems to be a common feature of cimolodonts, and therefore not mentioned in the main source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Characteristic of multituberculates, Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways. – But the source puts it slightly differently if I interpret correctly: The single pair of incisors was characteristic for the group, but their strongness and lateral compression are specific for the genus.

All I see is this: "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." How I read it is that what follows "characteristic of all Multituberculata," is what's characteristic. But I could of course be wrong, so I made the order closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• and the front end of the ischium was a rugose suture – I think it has to be "rugose sutural surface".

Said "formed" instead, since the source says "and the anterior end of the ischium forms a rugose suture". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• os calcaris bone – as os already means "bone", this reads somewhat repetitive.

Hmmm, but since most readers hardly know that, I thought this is more simple than saying "had a bone called os calcaris", or "had an os calcaris, a bone on the ankle" or variations of that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• extratarsal – any change to explain, link, or replace this technical term?

Said "on the outer side of the tarsus (cluster of foot bones)", it that is any clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• not ossified (consisting only of keratin) – this is misleading, as I don't think you can turn keratin into bone, and this is what this seems to imply. You can do that only with cartilage. Maybe simply write that it consists only of keratin, without mentioning ossification?

The source says this: "The extant monotremes do not have the ossified cornu calcaris but retain the os calcaris and the hollow, keratinous cornu calcaris". Anyhow, I changed the text to: "The cornu calcaris of the platypus consists only of keratin, and is hollow". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest looks very good and solid, happy to support once the above nitpicks have been addressed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should have addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

• "specific name" — anything that can be linked?

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its similarity" — "its" technically refers to the specific name

Said "the animal's" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed in the following section, but not in the lead.

Ah, changed there too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Catopsbaatar, "visible hero"" — suggest "Catopsbaatar, [language] for "visible hero""

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a skull" — is the fact that the skeleton has a skull not implied?

"Skeleton" could also imply a complete skeleton without a skull.

• "It was a member" — what’s the it?

Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "those of rodents" — could be wrong, but should this not be "that of rodents"?

That's what I wrote first, but it was requested that I change it to the current form. I guess because "heads" is plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its relatives" — its seems to refer to the skull referenced in the last sentence

Added name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "It had two" — the snout, or the genus?

Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "mandible" — link to mandible?

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "warmblooded" — why the quotation marks?

Because that is kind of an outdated way to refer to it (scientists wouldn't use it now), though it is also what most readers would be familiar with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "would have been" — is this debated, or would "were" work?

The keratin is not preserved, so it is only a very likely inference, so I felt it is better to be vague since the source is also, it just says "All Mesozoic mammals most probably possessed keratinous spurs covering the ossified cornu calcaris." FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation" — maybe belongs after the info about specimens; might be worth saying that these are in Mongolia, although it’s implied

Added "in Mongolia", but I kept the placement because I felt it mirrors the structure of the article better, where palaeoecology is last. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

• "species;" — should be a colon

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "creating the" — suggest "and created"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its similarity" — "its" refers to the name

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "they may belong" — suggest "they may instead belong"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "consists of a complete skull" — suggest "consists of the complete skull"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "rather complete" — mostly complete?

The source says "rather", which is kind of vague, so I feel I can't make it more specific than that without interpreting... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its pelvic ilia were stolen and destroyed" — any more details?

Added "on tour" back, which was removed during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [9][11][3] — same journal, so why do the first and third have linked titles, but the second a doi?

Their articles were only published with dois after a certain date, but all their articles are freely available online. So in the case of the older articles, a direct link is included to the online version, but in the newer article, the doi serves as a link to the free article, and a separate link would therefore be redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

• "their premolars" — what does "their" refer to?

Changed to "multituberculates", if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could just say "Multituberculates are characterized by their premolars"

Changed to "having" instead of "their", to make it clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "from the Mesozoic Era (when the dinosaurs dominanted)" — suggest "from the Mesozoic Era, when the dinosaurs dominated". Also, typo (dominanted)

Fixed, typo was a leftover from when it said "were dominant"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skull

• "41-millimetre-long" — "44-mm-long" for consistency?
• "35-millimetre-long" — same

Fixed both above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "those of rodents" — "that of rodents"?

As above, I guess it should be plural because "heads" is. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "middle than those" — suggest "middle than were those"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three. One of the most characteristic features of the face" — perhaps present tense is warranted here, since you’re talking about the specimens as they are today?

Well, since the features were like that in the live animals as well, I think it is ok, but mainly for consistency... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "prominent than that" — suggest "prominent than was that"

Added, though I think it reads a bit weirdly? FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if you want to revert to the original way.

I'll let it be unless someone else objects. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "similar to Kryptobaatar" — should probably be something like "similar to with Kryptobaatar" or "similar to Kryptobaatar's suture"

I said "similar to the condition in Kryptobaatar" if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "differed little" — you want an adverb, not an adjective (little)

Said "did not differ much" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dentition

• "By comparison, the dental formula of humans is" — what’s the fifth number, given that Catopsbaatar only has four?

I'm pretty sure this refers to the wisdom teeth, which vary in number in humans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that confused me was the "2-3", which per your explanation below (variation) now makes sense. If you can find an appropriate source, maybe it would be worth adding a parenthetical explanation, e.g., "(two incisors, one canine, two premolars and two or three molars)"

Can't find a source that states it specifically, probably because the writers assumed the readers would figure this out anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its I3 incisor" — "its" refers to the I3 incisor (the I3 incisor's I3 incisor, technically). "Its alveolus (tooth socket) was formed" would fix this.

Here "its" also refers to the genus, so I added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "unlike Tombaatar" — should probably be "unlike Tombaatar"

Not sure what the difference is, but I added "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that’s what I meant though.

• "( with their alveoli)" — extra space

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "in shape (unlike" — again, probably "in shape (unlike with"

Said "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "smaller and lacking ridges" — suggest the Oxford comma, since you just used one

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The lower p3 premolar" — "lower" is redundant given the above explanation re: capitalization

Alright, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The m2 had a cusp formula of 2−3:2, with most specimens 2:2." — I don’t get this (but granted most of this section has been flying way over my head). The formula was X, but the formula for most examples was Y?

The dash refers to variation. Two to three. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranial skeleton

• "was stout in side view ... was relatively wide in side view" — maybe another place for present tense

I see what you mean, and considered it myself, but I feel it might seem to inconsistent... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was about 40 mm" — you don’t need the "was"

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the meaning of this discrepancy is unknown" — any theories?

That is discussed under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "deep excavation" — depression?

The source says excavation, added "cavity" in parenthesis, which may be an acceptable translation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "os calcaris" — anything that can be linked?

Not as far as I can see, it is not really a widespread feature. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike other Mesosoic mammals" — perhaps "Unlike with other Mesosoic mammals"

Added, and corrected to "Mesozoic"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "As the spur may have been moved from its original position" — suggest relating this to the specimen, e.g., "As PM120/107's spur may..."

Added specimen number. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "like the platypus" & "Unlike the platypus" — suggest "(un)like with the platypus" or similar

Said "in", which I think might be a bit more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology

• "
  basal
  (primitive)"?

Like "warmblooded", "primitive" isn't used by modern scientists in this context and its use is discouraged, but is still the term most layreaders would know. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "might enable" — should probably be "might have enabled" for consistency of tense

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike other mammals, the pelvis of multituberculates" — should probably be "Unlike with other...", and should pelvis not be plural?

Added "with", but I think it is ok to write pelvis singular here, would maybe not seem as weird if it was "skull" or similar, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the newborns" — perhaps "and that the newborns"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "fossil mammals" — is "fossil" the correct term (both as opposed to the adjective fossilized, and as opposed to another word such as "extinct" or "ancient")?

Yeah, it is commonly used. To take one random example:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding and diet

• "feeding on plants and animals" — suggest "feeding on both plants and animals"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unique among mammals" — should be "Uniquely"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "molars began" — suggest "molars would begin"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Similar to rodents" — should be "As with rodents" or the like

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posture and locomotion

• "supported the latter" — suggest "supported the latter theory"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "bottom (suggesting a sprawling stance)," — suggest "bottom suggesting a sprawling stance,"

Removed parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "running fast" — should be "running quickly"

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2008, they suggested" — new paragraph, so you should be clear about who "they" is

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "had the ability to jump (were saltorial)" — convention in rest of article seems to be 'technical term (lay explanation)', so suggest "were saltorial (had the ability to jump)"

Switched. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "some were fossorial" — perhaps "some others were fossorial"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

• "considered the result" — suggest "considered to be the result"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be cool to include a photo of fossils from one of the other species found in the
  Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav
  , but your call

Since there are so many free images available of this animal, I'd rather devote space to those, but I don't think the article can carry more images as is anywya... But yeah, could have been added if there was a shortage of images of the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, this looks great. Comments, almost invariably minor, are above. —Usernameunique (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, starting to fix things now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed it all now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk. Added about five responses above; you’ll have my support after addressing the first one. —Usernameunique (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered and fixed some of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

The only issue I can find is with the authorship of Ref 21, where the joint authors appear to be Ryszard Gradzienski and Tomas Jerzykiewicz, not as stated. Otherwise, sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure what happened there, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]