Talk:Kosmoceratops

"Κόσμος" does not mean "decorated" nor in Ancient, nor in Hellinistic nor in Byzantine nor in Ottoman nor in Modern Greek

Seriously. "Κόσμος¨ means "world" or "Universe". "Κοσμιμένος" (active voice) or "Κοσμώμενος" (passive) the adjectective of "Κοσμώ"/decorate

From a greek guy.

Project2501a (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related point, why is the current translation using the verb? The paper is clear in what sense the name is being used by the discoverers [1],

Etymology. The generic name refers to kosmos (Greek), meaning ornamented, and ceratops (Greek), meaning horned face. The specific name honors Scott Richardson, who discovered the holotype and many other significant fossils from GSENM.

Why the article doesn't just state, "Kosmoceratops (from Greek, meaning "ornamented horned face")" I don't know. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, the verb is currently not in the transitive form so it makes the description sound odd. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "κόσμος", does in fact mean ornament/decoration. The word currently given, κοσμώ is utterly bizarre (it could, I suppose be a contracted verb or something), but I see no evidence that any verb is meant from the kosmoceratops. I will clarify the etymology and link to Wiktionary entries. Atelaes (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

Are these images not copyrighted to the authors of the paper? They're not even low-resolution, which they need to be if it's literally the only available image of the animal for quite some time. I'd remove them myself, but I'm reluctant to since they haven't been removed by anyone else (makes me wonder if I'm overlooking something). Shouldn't we wait for a fair-use reconstruction of the animal? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They do not come under fair-use so low resolution doesn't apply. If you click on the pictures it shows that they are licensed under a creative commons attribution 2.5 licence, as it says on the PLoS website which the image file links to. This license only requires attribution. On Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses it is listed as free-use for the purposes of Wikipedia. I'm not an expert in this side of Wikipedia but as far as I'm aware this is perfectly allowed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PLoS is pretty cool, huh? All the licensing information is explained on the image description pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I've never seen images from a recent scientific paper legitimately used on Wikipedia so I didn't know what to think. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No? Every single new animal published in PLOS One has images directly from the papers on Wikipedia, including such "stars" as Darwinius. See this: http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v02.i02 FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another (minor) reference

If anybody is looking for another reference, this week's issue of Newsweek has a two-page article on the Kosmoceratops. It probably doesn't say anything new, but having some diversity in the references is nice. I would add it myself, but I'm not sure where the references are wanted. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 04:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm surprised the article got so long, but as I stated elsewhere, some of the sections might be too detailed (especially wondering whether undue weight is given to Sampson and colleagues' views on biogeography)... But I really need someone's opinion on that, because I've looked at the text for too long... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Short description is "Genus of reptiles (fossil)", maybe better "Genus of dinosaur" or something, as "reptile" is a poor description.

Where do you see and access this? I have never done anything with the short descriptions before... Can't really grasp the guidelines either, is there such text in this article already? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see, apparently only visible with the mobile app, and stored in Wikidata only. I just changed it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The first specimens were discovered in the Kaiparowits Formation – This can also mean that later specimens where discovered in other formations. Maybe remove "The first"?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• and Kosmoceratops was considered significant due to its skull-ornamentation. – All ceratopsians have skull ornamentation. Maybe add what was special about this one (elaborate skull ornamentation or something?)

Said elaborate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• skull-ornamentation, neck-frill: I think the hyphen is incorrect here

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• and a flat, blade-like nasal horn. – What does flat mean? Narrow? Low? Do not quite understand.

Ok, this is another place where the paper seems to be very unclear. Under description, it says "In contrast, the nasal horncore of Kosmoceratops is unique among chasmosaurines in being flat and blade-like, with a transversely narrow, elongate base and rounded distal portion." But then the diagnosis says "nasal horncore transversely constricted, long-based, and blade-like, with flattened distal portion". So how I read it is one place they say the distal portion is round, another they say it is flat, but also says the horn itself is flat, which could mean either at the base or the distal part, but then it would be either contradicting itself within one section, or repeating itself... I tend to think it is just a mistake, and that they mean the distal part is flat, because it doesn't really look rounded, so I've changed it accordingly ("with a flattened upper portion"). But any help with interpreting it is of course welcome... FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• parietal fensestrae – link/explain, especially if used in the lead. I can add something to the dinogloss.

Done. Speaking of dino gloss, I had linked epiossifications to there, but there is no entry yet. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Its on my list. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

epiossifications and parietal fenestra are available now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• with small parietal fensestrae at the sides – Why "to the sides"? They are not visible in side view, are they?

Not sure what I was thinking, but removed from the intro, and said "farther back" under description, since that is the point in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• and ten hook-like processes on the hind margin on each side – five on each side, right?

Changed the numbers. Now it is inconsistent with how it is written under description, where it mentions how many there are on one side, but I think it works better to state the full number under the intro, which should be more concise. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting more distance from the original structure and wording can only be a good thing imho. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Studies of bone histology shows – "show", or even "showed".

Said show. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• was identified from two localities – are these very close to each other? Because there is only one star on the map? Maybe worth adding that.

There are two available maps; one in a Perspectives On Horned Dinosaurs chapter, and one in the book about the Grand Staircase monument. The former shows two, adjacent points, the latter shows a single point for both, so I just took that option for simplicity (and because the latter source is more recent, the specimen numbers aren't even mentioned in the former, so it is a bit tricky to keep track). The sources don't specifically state anything about how close the sites are to each other, though. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• In all, four specimens were reported to have been found – You only mentioned three specimens, what about the fourth?

The description is pretty unclear. For example, it only mentions the holotype and a single referred specimen under material, yet the image caption to the skeletal says "Kosmoceratops richardsoni is known from four specimens". Furthermore, the article itself only identifies the holotype as a skull, which is clearly wrong based in the Perspectives On Horned Dinosaurs chapter which first mentioned the specimens, and indicates the holotype has an associated postcranial skeleton. Likewise, all we get about this in the actual description is this from the same image caption: "one of which preserves a nearly complete skull and 45% of the postcranium". Stated nowhere else in the paper, seems a bit sloppy. I have no idea what the fourth specimen is. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Where did you find UMNH VP 16878? Could not find that one in the paper. The paper lists UMNH VP 12198, but this is listed elsewhere as a Utahceratops specimen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted, and this is addressed in the Grand Staircase book: "UMNH VP 16878 was incorrectly listed in Sampson et al. (2010) as UMNH VP 12198 (a specimen number that had previously been given to the disarticulated Utahceratops skull). We here correct this typographic error and formally refer UMNH VP 16878 to K. richardsoni, but not UMNH VP 12198." I just used the corrected specimen number, and thought it would be too minor/uninteresting a detail to mention that such a mistake had been made in the article. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think it is to minor to be mentioned, but I would put the citation directly after the corrected specimen number, as a hint (I always do this when the sources I used contradict each other). Otherwise I fear that people checking against the sources might mistake this for an error in the WP article and "correct" it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, but I'm always concerned that by placing a citation in the middle of a sentence, it will seem to readers that it supports all of the preceding text, when it may only support the part it is placed immediately after. That's why I otherwise place all citations last in a sentence that is supported by multiple citations. But if no one is confused, the other way is fine by me. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As long as it is before the dot of a sentence, I would not assume that it cites anything outside that sentence, and if it occurs in the middle of the sentence, it should be clear that only that one information is sourced; but yes, the citation system is not ideal in many ways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• half of the valid genera were named since 2003 – by which year?

Said "by 2013, half of all valid genera were named since 2003", but it reads a bit weird. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something like "a 2013 study stated that half of all valid genera were named since 2003" would be a very slight improvement? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• symposium book about ceratopsians – would be helpful to have the citation for this book directly after the sentence

Done, the reason I didn't do this before is the same above for the corrected specimen number. It seems to be even more an issue here, because most of the preceding text is not cited to that book. SO what to do, repeat all the other citations after the part with the book, even though there is only one sentence after it? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• from being identified to a particular species – "identified as"?

Changed. I think the source said to species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• He considered it premature to name the species, – that is the third "considered" in three successive sentences. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mixed it up a bit, with "proposed" and "found". FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• and had long main tooth rows which formed complex slicing batteries new sentence?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• rostral bone – link. The glossary has an entry …

Done, though under discovery, where it is first mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The internal naris (bony nostril) – I am not sure about the use of "bony nostril" for the internal nares (choanae). The sources I used to define all these terms in the glossary appear to use it only for the external naris. Maybe gloss as "opening in the roof of the mouth for the nasal passage" or similar?

Hmm, in this context, it is used for the entire, big nostril opening. So is this a case where the paper is using the term wrong? In this article[2] Darren Naish simply calls it naris/nares, and calls it the "bony nostril opening", so maybe I should just remove "internal"? Tried that for now, and kept the gloss. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently they are using it wrong, yes. The internal naris is only where the nasal passage enters the oral cavity. Your change fixed it, all good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• orbits (eye sockets) – orbita

Changed, though the paper actually says "medial to the orbits" at one point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad – "orbits" was correct. I must have confused it with German all the time (where the singular is "Orbita"). Thanks for the hint. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, changed back. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• supraorbital horncores – could be easily replaced with something more accessible, i.e. "horncores above the eyes"? Or at least provide a gloss.

Glossed it, it may be unnecessary to keep, but maybe it will we brought up again during FAC, so I'll see what is said then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• squamosal bones – Link? Mention that they form the frill

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The parietal bone – for the squamosals you used plural in the same sentence, so should be "parietal bones", as this is a paired element as well.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The epiossifications (the accessory ossifications that lined the margins of the neck-frills in ceratopsids, also termed "epoccipitals") – not 100% correct, as epiossifications are not the same as epoccipitals, but a broader category including some other horns.

Changed to "the accessory ossifications that formed the horns and lined the margins of the neck frills in ceratopsids, the latter also termed "epoccipitals"", any better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Now removed mention of "epoccipitals" entirely, after reading your gloss. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• The parietalsquamosal neck-frill – again something to avoid, but I would defenitely explain earlier that the frill is composed of the parietal and squamosal.

Should be fixed now with the new structure (stated in parenthesis which bones it was composed of). FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The forwards-curving epiparietals – should be mentioned earlier that they were forward curving

Should be clearer now earlier what that curves where. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The parietalsquamosal neck-frill was very derived(or "advanced"), – Why is this in the middle of the frill description, not at the beginning?

Fixed by the new structure. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Frill description could do with better structure and flow in general I think.

Yes, I had followed the description paper too closely (which has a weird structure, jumping back and forth), but was already thinking of placing text about related parts together. Now one paragraph goes into detail about the frill, and the last about the spikes there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• hook-like processes on the hind margin of the frill, formed by epiossifications. – "formed by" unnecessary, these projections are the epiossifications. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Said "ten hook-like epiossifications", as they are called processes later, which should make it clear it's referring to the same. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• In a 2014 thesis – I would always indicate if it is a PhD or Master thesis, as this is a big difference.

All Master's theses (now mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• A minor point: I would be careful when citing a Master thesis and calling the person a paleontologist, if that is the only thing this person published. A Master thesis is an exam more than anything else. Of course, one can argue that publishing research on dinosaurs makes one a paleontologist in any case, even if it is only a Masters thesis that was not peer-reviewed. But could this be misleading in this case?

I think the ones used here are safe; Campbell is also cited for a "proper" paper in the article, Nicole Ridgwell seems to have many additional paleo papers to her name[3], and Carolyn G. Levitt is Paleontology Collections Manager at the Natural History Museum of Utah[4]. But I admittedly didn't check before you brought it up... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding citing theses: Be aware that WP:Sources states that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I do not think that you should remove them, but (having written flawy theses myself) I also think that this rule makes sense; in the scientific literature such theses are generally ignored.

The Levitt thesis has at least been cited and discussed in a peer reviewed paper, as stated in parenthesis where the thesis is covered. Campbell also came to pretty much the same conclusion from his thesis in a later peer reviewed paper (regarding the affiliation of Vagaceratops), what the thesis adds is the backstory to how Sampson and colleagues apparently identified the epiossifications, and how he instead interprets them, which seems to mirror Longrich's earlier peer reviewed paper. I can't find any references to the Nicole Marie Ridgwell thesis, but it is also pretty recent (2017), and doesn't strike me as very controversial (coprolites)... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, all good then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• In 2016, the paleontologist Gregory S. Paul suggested that – I would add here that this is a popular book (the reader will assume that it is a peer-reviewed paper).

Mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• This arrangement has not been followed by subsequent researchers – as this was not a formal action, it does not even needed to be considered by subsequent researchers. "Followed" seems a bit strong here, given that it was just a popular book, not scientific literature.

I shortened it to just say "Most ceratopsid genera are generally considered monotypic (containing a single species)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• identified all ten epiossifications on the hind margin of the frill of the adult Kosmoceratopsas epiparietals, before realizing that six of them were epiparietals – insert "only" (that only six of them were epiparietals"?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• and suggested that Spiclypeus provided clues as to how it was achieved. – maybe "how it evolved"?

Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• it lived around the same time as Kosmoceratops, and could therefore not have been ancestral to it. It could, of course, or are they talking specifically about a chronospecies?

I was wondering the same, but all they say is "Despite the transitional nature of Spiclypeus in these respects, the taxon was approximately equivalent in time to Kosmoceratops ([93]: fig 14]), and so could not have been ancestral to it". Which of course is not how it necessarily works... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• badult – adult?

Never heard of badults? Fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• sustaned – sustained

That spell-check is not very effective... FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• and dense osteocytes throughout their development – I find this confusing. When looking at the cross-section of a bone, you see the entire life history of the animal (but usually not the very first years). Or do you mean "dense osteocytes in bone tissue formed during the rapid phase of growth"?

The abstract says "Radially-oriented vascular canals as well as dense osteocytes from throughout ontogeny are further indicators of rapid growth." Since they only had subadult to adult specimens, it is maybe an overstatement. Should I specify that it only applies to the sampled ontogenetic stages? FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I would say "from throughout their development", as the source did: they are apparently not comparing juvenile with adult bones but look at adult bone cross sections where the tissue is oldest in the center and youngest at the periphery. Thus, osteocytes in the center of the bones are from the earliest ontogenetic stage recorded by the bone. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• by a higher number of growth lines throughout development. – same as above. "Development" should include the entire life cycle, so more growth lines simply mean that the animal was older, not more.

The abstract says "I conclude that basal ceratopsians grew more slowly than the large quadrupedal ceratopsids, as evidenced by a generally higher number of definitive growth lines prevalent throughout development" and "In contrast, large, quadrupedal centrosaurines show rapid growth with a small to moderate number of LAGs." Anyhow, the sentence is removed now, per below. FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• had elevated metabolism – "an"?

Added, as it also says in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• and compared with the ceratopsids Pachyrhinosaurus, Centrosaurus, and Einosaurus from further north – I would add here that the lags are (I assume?) present in these forms, for clarity

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• as shown by a higher number of growth lines throughout development. – but below it is stated that no growth lines can be found.

I've removed that sentence, since the basal ceratopsians were only compared to those ceratopsids that did have LAGS, and is therefore not really relevant to Kosmo. FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• dominant theory involves – better use "hypothesis"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sampson stated that most of these features – what features, where does this refer to?

It only says "Sampson added, "Most of these bizarre features would have made lousy weapons to fend off predators", but it should be a reference to the horns and frills mentioned earlier in the paragraph. I have added the word "bizarre", though, as it then leads more smoothly into the subsequent discussion of "bizarre features in dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• disparaty – disparity

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• scaled to body size growth – "body size increase"? "scaled with"?

Said "scaled with increase in body size". FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• The authors found that ornament complexity scaled to body size growth according to the quarter power law – quite complicated, maybe explain what this means (that ornaments are generally less complicated in species with larger body sizes?)

Not sure, but doesn't it say it increases? A quote from the discussion of that paper: "Regarding complexity, we show that it correlates to body size alone, even when phylogenetic effects are controlled for. This supports our hypothesis that complexity scales to the one-quarter power of body size." FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ornamental complexity increases when animals get larger. I would just state that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• late Cretaceous – should be capitalised ("Late Cretaceous"). Only stages are not capitalised ("late Campanian"), as these are informal subdivisions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I snipped "according to the quarter power law" and kept the rest as is, is that what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• For the more difficult points: I would be happy to take a look at the sources whenever you need a second opinion on how to interpret the stuff; just let me know which ones! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I can fix the histology stuff by just reading it over again, but that scaling paper was a bit over my head (no idea about the "quarter power law")... Feel free to have a look at it[5], but I'll also try to see if I can answer your questions tomorrow... FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied to the missing issues above, with more questions. FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• aquatic pants – :D

Makes me think of Worldwide Pants, maybe an idea for if I ever want to start a production company, fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• The paleontologist Michael A. Getty and colleagues examined the taphonomy of the holotype and assigned – This reads as if Getty did assign something, and only after reading on it becomes clear that this is not the case; it is a bit confusing and could be reformulated (removing "assigned" would be the simplest fix).

Removed, not sure why I thought it was needed to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• which is consisted – consistend

Fixed, to consistent, though! FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• during the Upper Cretaceous – "Upper" and "Lower" is always the stratigraphy. "During" indicates a time, so better "Late Cretaceous".

Changed to late. Are the two equivalent in that sense, or is it misleading to change the word instead of the sentence to match "upper"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• stratigraphic ranges of Kosmoceratops and Utahceratops shows – show

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• and followed other northern formations (the upper Judith River and Two Medicine formations) and southeast (the Fruitland and Aguja formations) – "and southeast" does not appear to fit within the sentence structure.

Changed to "followed other formations in the north". FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• and that more derived chasmosaurines from the latest Campanian and Maastrichtian were descended from ancestral forms that had previously been restricted to southern Laramidia. – this is pretty much repeated further below in the same paragraph, maybe remove to keep it concise.

Yeah, there is reiteration of a lot of this in the same paragraph, which follows how the description article is structured, but I had also thought of consolidating it, but wasn't sure how. I'll give it a try... FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• within separate, latitudinally arrayed centers of endemism between 77.0 and 75.8 million years ago – this was already mentioned

Removed first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• though there was little evidence to support any of these ideas. – above it was stated there is no evidence for barriers; and again a bit repetitive.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• the differences in dinosaur taxa between the formations was – were

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• That is all I could find! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix these tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime, what do you think about potential WP:undue weight issues? Maybe it isn't as bad as I initially thought? Also, just for the record, I am not entirely satisfied with the current taxobox photo (looks ok as a thumbnail), but I hope we will get a photo of this mount one day to replace it:[6] Apparently it was used in Jurassic World 3[7]... FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Now the last issue shave been answered. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have now answered the newly added comments. I am still in the process of adjusting the copy edited text, but shouldn't take too long, and I'll also look into what was raised on my talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Jens Lallensack, now I've done the last edits and it should be ready for check-up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Promoting now. The only additional suggestion I have is to change "The authors found that ornament complexity scaled with increased body size" to "The authors found that ornament complexity increased with body size", which is simpler. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that in my next edit, and by coincidence, this paper[8] about the Vagaceratops issue just came out today, so I'll add something about that too... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Map

The large scale map in the lower left corner of the map is incorrectly labelled. Colorado is labelled "Wyoming" and Wyoming is labelled "Colorado".Bill (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd, considering it is from a scientific paper. I have now swapped the state labels in the map. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the map. Unfortunately, your changes seem to be restricted to the original. The smaller version that is embedded in the article is still the incorrect version.Bill (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That would be a cache issue; if you refresh or "purge" the page, it should update. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed peer review paper

Hi Headbomb, I see you removed some text[9] based on the fact that a paper failed peer review.[10] The thing is, the paper and it conclusions was still discussed in subsequent literature, so leaving it out leaves a gap in the logic and sequence of events. It is part of the relevant literature on this subject whether it has passed peer review or not. We could perhaps state in the article that it failed peer review, if that makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, that JVP conference article, though the abstract was published by a journal, is still a conference abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Being a conference paper is irrelevant, this was published in a journal, you cite it as a journal. Also a failed peer-review paper cannot be used to backup claims. If others cite it, then cite those sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop converting this to a cite conference, this was published in a journal. cite conference is for conferences proceedings publishing in books and will wrongly italicizes the title because it assumes you're giving the title of a book. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The abstract was published in a a book (full citation "Fowler, D., Scannella, J., and Horner, J. 2011. Reassessing ceratopsid diversity using unified frames of reference. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, SVP Program and Abstracts Book, 2011: 111A."[11]) The site I copied the citation from[12] just gave an incomplete reference. So yes, it should just be expanded, but still use the conference template. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As for the peer review fail, it is central to a discussion of the evolution of this animal, and has been refuted by other writers. We can't just give the refutation without context. Maybe it needs a wider discussion of how to tackle this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If it's central and you're discussion the refutation, it should be made clear that the claim has failed peer-review to begin with. But that also leaves questions of WP:DUE weight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to do that. Yes, since some of the subsequent sources refute it in detail, I think the original arguments need to be explained too. And the article currently makes it clear that those claims have been refuted. And to make this stronger, I'll add the fact that it failed peer review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried to complete the conference book abstract, but maybe I am mixing incompatible parameters. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

New

This is such a new article, is it accurate and useful?Crusader4 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Crusader4, it's actually 10 years old! It was started back in 2010. This is what's called a Featured Article, meaning that it has undergone peer review by multiple editors and is considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia. You'll notice Featured Articles by the little bronze star in the top right corner of the article. Enwebb (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what is meant by "new", it was recently featured, yes, but the article is pretty old. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)