Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop/Archive 10

Yixian Formation

I floated the idea of using the article workshop to improve WP:PAL's coverage of geological formations (which are mostly lacking with only a few exceptions), and several people said they'd be interested in participating. I figured the Yixian Formation would be a good one to start with because most of the literature on it is relatively recent (so finding sources shouldn't be too difficult), it's among the most important Mesozoic deposits for the study of small animals (something generally lacking coverage on WP), and there's tons of candidate images for the article. I don't have any specific plans to bring it to GA or FA, but that could always change. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any other geological formation articles already at GA or FA? That way we have a rough framework to base the work on this one off of. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. But it would be an opportunity to develop a general structure that we all agree on. Maybe that's the first we should do, and then decide who would do what section? I may start with a proposal of a general outline that could fit most formation articles (but has to be adapted for the Yixian Formation):

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

3) Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (structural geology, volcanism etc.)

4) Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. Might be better to include in "Stratigraphy" in some cases where this has to be discussed for many members separately.

5) Fossil content, including the most important individual sites. Only general information; move fossil taxa to separate spin-off list.

6) Natural resources / mining (if any)

7) Geoconservation (where applicable)

8) Research history

Of course, this is far not ideal yet, so I am looking forward to seeing your ideas/versions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your idea is pretty solid. Taking from your outline, it might be possible to streamline it into 5 main sections as follows:

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

• Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (volcanism etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

• Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. (structural geology, etc.?)

3) Fossil content + important sites

4) Human use / natural resources

5) Geoconservation

Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm only a novice when it comes to geology proper. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me add the research history back again (we cannot do without that); move "Structural geology" to "Geologic history", and other minor tweaks:

1) Geologic history (background info, general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, type locality, where the formation outcropps today)

• Possibly other geological aspects (volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

• Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate.

3) Fossil content + important sites

4) Economic geology / Human uses

5) Research history

• Geoconservation / Cultural aspects (only where relevant)

We might want to throw this to the bin once we actually work on such an article. But its a start. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think its worth including the paleoclimate and depositional environment in its own section because that's likely to be something of interest to many readers. It could at least be its own subheader under "Geologic history" or "Stratigraphy". Fortunately, the Yixian Formation already has a separate page for the paleobiota, so we will only need to write a general coverage of that. I think the sections you proposed are just fine, although I think "research history" should be the first section in the article body (as is the case for most/all pages for fossil taxa). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably, yes, we can maybe group Research history, etymology, type locality, and definition together, as first section? I wonder if we need a separate section on geography. I mean modern geography, i.e., where the formation is outcropping today (which can be quite complex), and maybe its relevance to geomorphology, natural hazzards or whatever has to be covered. That doesn't really fit under "Geologic history". Maybe (but just maybe) we should have "Geography" as major section and "Economic geology" (and cultural aspects) as subsections of it. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think grouping all those together is probably the best move. Etymology and type locality are all tied to research history very closely. We can re-examine the question of a separate section for geography once the bulk of the article is written because it will become clear by then whether or not it's a substantial enough matter to warrant a dedicated section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let me just update it though, for the record:

1) Research history (also including etymology, type locality, and definition)

2) Geologic history (background info, broader geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition including volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

3) Stratigraphy and sedimentology (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

• Subsections on dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate

4) Fossil content + important sites

5) Geography (distribution, and where applicable, subsections on economic geology, geoconservation, and cultural aspects) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we generally agree on the overall structure of the article, so its probably worth splitting up the workload. I personally would prefer to do the stratigraphy section. I can also assist with research history or geologic history after that (I assume there will be significant overlap in the sources). Rather than start from scratch, the pages for Jehol biota, Psittacosaurus, and Paleobiota of the Yixian Formation have a lot more references already consolidated. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I will pick what is left over. First need to finish that dinosaur above before I have the capacity to pick anything, though \u2026 --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus? If so, ouch, good luck with that one. I'll be on call for copyediting and a looksover once it nears completion, too busy to contribute writing. The Morrison Man (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Thescelosaurus, our other collaboration above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've found some licensed images to upload that I'll keep here in case anyone sees fit to use them.

• 
• 
• 

Peking Man

Back from another long hiatus wanting to wrap up some old projects; I'm trying to get this to FA. Most reviewers would come from this wikiproject anyways, so since we now have this new peer review system, I guess I'll put it here first as I'm getting back into the swing of things Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Welcome back! I will have a look at this soon. For a start, does the article need to be updated? There are some newer papers that are not incorporated, like [1] and [2], you might want to check for additional ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the fire one and went through google scholar for erectus pekinensis and Zhoukoudian since 2020. I don't have access to Geological Society Publications, but since it's another summarization of Zhoukoudian excavation, I wouldn't think it'd add any new information Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I make some copy edits as I go; feel free to revert if needed.
• Chibanian – In the box you say "Middle Pleitocene", should be consistent. Also, for the lead, I would give the range in years too.

Changed to Middle Pleistocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1960, the Cenozoic Research Laboratory was converted into an independent organisation as the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was headed by Pei, Jia, and Chinese palaeoanthropologist Yang Zhongjian. – Lacks context. What's the link to Peking Man? Was the Cenozoic Research Laboratory established because of Peking Man? Why are the individuals relevant for this article?

added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• and 14 other H. erectus sites have since been discovered across the country as of 2016 in the Yuanmou, Tiandong, Jianshi, Yunxian, Lantian, Luonan, Yiyuan, Nanzhao, Nanjing, Hexian, and Dongzhi counties.[6] – I would not mention all these counties here; these are not Peking Men anyways, right?

The way the subspecies thing is handled with H. erectus is kinda weird, they're all sort of grouped as "Chinese H. erectus" and are by and large considered to be more closely allied with each other than other H. erectus populations, but some of them have historically been given some subspecies distinction which are variably still recognized today. It's definitely relevant to list them somewhere Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• most notably soldier Lai Jinliang – also lacks context, this is not really helpful without further elaboration (why is a soldier notable here? Who is he? What did he do to be the "most notable" peer?). I suggest to delete this.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am surprised that you name "Homo erectus pekinensis" only in the first sentence in the lead, but not in the main article. When, and by whom, was the species classified as a subspecies as H. erectus?

I mean the article title isn't the subspecies name so I'm preferentially using Peking Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest to make the table collapsed per default.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the systematics discussion, I can't find anything on the relations of Peking Man with other H. erectus from China. There are multiple other H. erectus localities in China, but only the cave near Beijing had this particular subspecies? Are the other H. erectus finds attributed to other subspecies? How do they differ? Anything known about their interrelations? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Chinese H. erectus are grouped together (sometimes as "classic" H. erectus) but what exactly that means is mostly defined by the Peking Man as the population with the most fossil material. The other ones are mostly skull fragments (not the most diagnostic) and teeth which have extremely distinct shovelling which is brought up in the Mouth section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a section about relationships of Peking Man in the "Classification" section? All the information given there seem to be historic, but the current viewpoints don't become quite clear. This could mention the other H. erectus from China, and why it is difficult to compare them with Peking Man. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean I could say that the Yuanmou and Lantian specimens look more ancient (which makes sense since they're older) and clarify that Peking Man probably didn't descend from Java Man? What specific kinds of relationships were you thinking about? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at the end of the "Out of Africa" theory section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a step in the right direction. But I really think you should also cover the basics about Chinese H. erectus, properly introduce Nanjing Man for example. What other H. erectus material is there in China? What kind of material is it (undiagnostic at subspecies level it seems)? Any other subspecies in China? Is Nanjing Man another subspecies, and how is it related to Peking Man (did it live earlier, later? Common ancestry?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Nanjing Man, Yuanmou Man, Lantian Man, and Hexian Man all at some point got subspecific distinction but no one really uses subspecies names in general. There at one point was a shift to say there's only 1 subspecies in all of China, but no one specifically uses the name H. e. pekinensis outside of Zhoukoudian. I added a little more but I think the big problem with this question is the whole subspecies distinction is often ignored in general with how poorly defined subspecies even is. I could include dates on the list of all the Chinese erectus sites if that helps with context, or the cladogram from Homo erectus#Phylogeny? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that the sources are unclear, but I wonder how most recent, reputably published papers refer to Peking Man – as a subspecies, a population, or just to the locality? Do they use the name Homo erectus pekinensis or not? If they don't, maybe it would be more prudent to remove the subspecies name from the first sentence of the lead and have a separate sentence saying that it has often been regarded as a distinct subspecies? Another point: I also found the name "Homo pekinensis" (amongst others, in Anton and Middleton 2023, which is quite recent), which is not mentioned in the article at all? My feeling still is that the taxonomy coverage is still a bit unclear and unsatisfactory, but I don't know the sources of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That study is already cited in the article, but it wasn't arguing that Peking Man is a unique species, but that if someone were to in the future argue that Peking Man (and maybe other Chinese H. erectus) is sufficiently distinct enough if we were to find more complete fossil remains somewhere, then the species name would be H. pekinensis per priority. I most often see just "Zhoukoudian" instead of "Peking" or "pekinensis", which is not to say they absolutely do not support the subspecies distinction, more so the study doesn't want to focus on terminology as much Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think that the taxon "H. pekinensis" should be covered in this article, there are many papers that mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

added a sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The cladogram could be helpful if added. But note that it is a specimen-based analysis, not a taxon-based analysis. Therefore, the terminal node is one particular skull, not the taxon. The Homo erectus article implies that this study considers "Peking Man" as a taxon but in fact they don't. As long as Wikipedia says that "Peking Man is a subspecies", I don't think that the name "Peking Man" should appear in that cladogram because it's simply not what the source says. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean the study doesn't really speak on the subspecies of H. erectus since it focuses more on organizing "late archaic Homo" in East Asia, so I wouldn't say it's specifically arguing against taxon distinction for anything inside the "H. erectus group" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I really begin to think that this article should not be about the subspecies, but about the fossils from Zhoukoudian. If papers do not use the subspecies name, it is a clear sign that the taxon is not widely accepted, so we should not present it here as fact. Furthermore, the sources (and the article itself) are mostly about the fossils from Zhoukoudian, not about the subspecies, which explains why taxonomic coverage is so poor in both. The German Wikipedia too introduces Peking Man as the name given to fossils from Zhoukoudian, not declaring it a subspecies (and I know, and highly value, the author of that German WP article, it is someone who really knows what he is doing). Consequently, this would mean that the article should not have a taxon box. I hope we will get some opinions from others on this point too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1921, in the Fangshan District, 47 kilometres (29 miles) southwest of Beijing (then referred to in the West as Peking), Swedish archaeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson was teaching Austrian palaeontologist Otto Zdansky and American archaeologist Walter Granger on the Zhoukoudian Site. At the Chi Ku Shan ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, they were advised by local quarrymen to dig at the nearby Longgushan ("Dragon Bone Hill") locality. – I read several times but still don't know what was going on. Can this be reworded more clearly? What is this ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, apparently a different site? Why did the Swedish archaeologist "teach" about the site before the first tooth was discovered? That all doesn't make sense.

added some more details Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Much better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• which Canadian palaeoanthropologist Davidson Black made the holotype of a new taxon, Sinanthropus pekinensis. – Taxonbox lists two authors, not only Black.

Black did this in a 1927 publication with him listed as the only author, but in naming the species he lists the authority as himself and Zdansky so I wasn't sure what to do, but I added Zdansky Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1927, Black classified newly discovered human remains from the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site into a new genus and species as "Sinanthropus pekinensis". – This is a repetition of the sentence above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• China and Indonesia were probably colonised by H. erectus in two different waves. A population related to Peking Man may have later been in genetic contact with Southeast Asian H. erectus, since the younger teeth at the Indonesian Sangiran site are much smaller than the older ones — more like those of Peking Man's — but tooth reduction could have happened for other reasons. – I think this absolutely lacks context, and I don't understand it. What about those two waves? To which wave does Peking Man belong? What do these waves have to do with the rest of the paragraph?

At the Sangiran site, there are some older and some younger H. erectus fossils. The older ones are morphologically more comparable to western H. erectus than to the younger Zhoukoudian Peking Man fossils, which could mean that Sangiran and Zhoukoudian were colonized in two different dispersal events out of Africa rather than there being only a single H. erectus dispersal out of Africa to the Far East. Or in other words, the older Sangiran fossils may be more closely allied with H. erectus sensu lato instead of H. erectus sensu stricto forming a single unified group (but you know if stricto did form a single group, that'd be grounds for speciation). The younger Sangiran fossils have smaller teeth more similar to Zhoukoudian so the authors say it's possible there was interbreeding going on between the populations represented by Zhoukoudian and Sangiran, unless there were environmental/cultural drivers for tooth reduction (since tooth reduction is a common trend in human evolution usually ascribed to improving cutting and food processing technology). I'm not sure what level of detail is relevant here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Peking Man and anatomically similar East Asian contemporaries are sometimes referred to as "classic" H. erectus – Context here, too. What makes them "classic"? And which H. erectus are not "classic"?

It's kind of a historical thing since it's the most productive H. erectus site in the world, and the only other ancient human fossils we had at the time were Dawson's Eoanthropus (the oldest man), Dubois' Java Man (the giant gibbon), Boule's La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 and friends (a devolving dead end), and Mauer 1 (a nondescript jaw). Like this is the set of fossils that changed our understanding of what early humans were supposed to look like, and created a huge paleontological interest in the subject especially in Asia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• You often use upper case when referring to bones, for example In addition to carnivore damage, Skull V bears …; Adult Mandible IV with 3P – shouldn't these be lower case?

I'm never really sure how to treat kinda famous fossils that weren't famous enough to get a fun nickname. Like we have Dmanisi skull 5 which is also referred as simply Skull 5 with caps (you know, given context) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Overall, their reconstruction aligns more closely with other Asian H. erectus and African H. e? ergaster specimens – more closely than what? Compared to the bust mentioned earlier? Also, I think this sentence should make clear that these particular authors propose that they align more closely. "H. e? ergaster" seems to miss a dot, and is super technical; maybe just write "H. ergaster" and add a footnote stating "considered by the authors as a potential subspecies of H. erectus." or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

As in it's less apomorphic than Weidenreich's reconstruction, and it says "their reconstruction" so that claim is already tied to Tattersall and Sawyer, or is it not? I wasn't sure what to do with ergaster, originally I just wanted to put "African H. erectus" but I figured I should link to the article. Maybe "African H. erectus (sometimes Homo ergaster or H. erectus ergaster)" and keep using "African H. erectus" elsewhere? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. You could alternatively place the explanation in a footnote to keep the text concise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Peking Man lacks a true postglenoid process behind the jaw hinge, only a broad-based, triangular projection. – "Only a" does not seem to fit grammatically; also should explain what makes the process "true". For example, write "Peking Man lacks a true postglenoid process (a bony projection behind the jaw hinge); instead of being elongated, it is merely a triangular projection with a broad base". Replace "elongated" with whatever is the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. I think elongated is a fine word, the point is that it's a low projection Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• At the back of the skull, the occipital torus extends in a relatively straight line, though laterally curves downward at termination (at the sides of the head). The occipital torus can be bordered by furrows (sulci) on the top and bottom margins (for muscle attachment), and the bottom margin of the torus gradually fades. – Don't understand

There's a straight line of bone arcing across the back of the skull which bends down and fades by like the ears, and there's trenches dug out along its length on its top and bottom side where muscles attach to, the top margin just kinda suddenly ends so it's like a really noticeable and kinda wonky transition, but the bottom margin kinda blends gradually so it's not as abrupt Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe replace though laterally curves downward at termination (at the sides of the head) with but curves downward at the sides of the skull? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• The foramen magnum (where the spine connects with the skull) appears to have been positioned near the centre like in humans – Centre of what?

Looks like I misunderstood what was meant by "occipital foramen", removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is within the range of variation for modern humans. – I thought the brain of modern humans is larger?

No, normal non-pathological human brain volume can get down to 850 cc (or that's the lowest anyone's reported so far). Most brain volume studies are done in Europe, and populations from colder climates (for whatever reason) tend to have overall higher brain volume in absolute measure both in average and range. Fun fact, brain volume was one of the things used to justify the racial superiority of Europe, but the "Eskimo" brain kinda threw a little monkey wrench into that Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Encephalisation quotients (the ratio between observed to predicted brain mass for an animal of a given size, cautiously used as an indicator of intelligence) typically score from three to four for "classic" H. erectus assuming a body weight on the whereabouts of 50 kg (110 lb).[87] – This is something that could be deleted, as it is not strictly pertinent. Just for context I think it is not very helpful as it only gives another number. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

deleted Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• (a bony ridge corresponding to the tooth root) – Not sure what "corresponding to" means here. Not just "on the tooth root", right?

It's not the root itself, it's the displaced bone caused by the cavity Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Still unclear. Where is that ridge? Sounds like it would be inside the tooth socket, but I believe it is on the outer surface of the jaw? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's like a bump on the maxilla, like you know when you see a maxilla it has all the vertical ridges corresponding to all the teeth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• There is subnasal prognathism (the area between the nose and mouth juts out). – You could link prognathism, and it would be the upper jaw that juts out, which is part of the mouth (not inbetween nose and mouth), right? Why not just "the upper jaw juts out", which is shorter and much more precise, too? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Shovelling also usually occurs in Neanderthals and less intensely in many early modern human specimens across Europe, Africa, and Asia.[92] In recent populations, the trait is triggered by the EDAR V370A allele, and seldom occurs outside East Asians and indigenous peoples of Siberia and the Americas. This allele seems to have experienced positive selection in an ancestor population (maybe one from Beringia) about 20,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), possibly because the allele also expresses a higher duct branching density in the mammary glands during the embryo stage of a pregnancy. Duct branching density scales with breast milk production and nutrition. Arctic populations, especially during the frigid LGM, may have been vitamin D deficient, which often also confers a higher duct branching density, and EDAR V370A may enhance this phenomenon. – You go off-topic here. Try to keep it focused on description. If you think that mention of this allele is critical for this article, I could be more appropriately discussed in a later section.

I'll just put it in a note, historically the trait was used as evidence of an ancestor–descendant link between Peking Man and modern East Asians. It is a pretty long note though, so maybe I should remove everything past "possibly because the allele also..." the possible selective pressures may not be too relevant here? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally would remove it, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Why is stature discussed under "postcranium"? I think the info is difficult to find there; I would discuss it right at the beginning of the Description section.

because all those measurements assume a humanlike postcranium. I could also make it a new section, like "Dimensions" or something? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that "Size" is better as a separate section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• The first three paragraphs under "postcranium" appear to describe H. erectus in general, rather than Peking man? If so, I would drastically cut that down. It does not seem to provide important information that the reader might need for context. The H. erectus article is for that.

Just the first paragraph, the other two are specifically the Zhoukoudian humeri and femora Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, but is it helpful to compare with modern humans? Shouldn't the anatomy be compared with H. erectus? The differences pointed out would apply to other H. erectus too, I assume? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean I could go on listing random femora provisionally designated as H. erectus but in general the femur doesn't vary all that much. Like as stated in the text, the femur is not technically outside the range of variation for modern humans. Like, H. erectus seems to have had a human bauplan Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• braincase is exceptionally thickened like in other H. erectus. – its not an exception if it is like in others?

"extremely" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Dunkleosteus77: In case you didn't see these. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't see this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Some replies above. It might not be smooth sailing at FAC, there is probably more work to do on prose, and maybe word count is already an issue, too. Maybe you should just go for it now to get more feedback. Listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests first is possibly a good idea but would take a lot of time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a recurring problem for me; I have a very unconventional way of speaking English, I've been told. I've submitted it to the Guild Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid

Hi, PrimalMustelid chiming in for now. I might have further comments down the line for later. For now, we need to discuss the elephant in the room that is the taxonomy of H. erectus pekinensis. Address these following concerns, as the article does not address the taxonomic history of the taxon nearly enough:

• What was the basis behind the researchers erecting the genus and species Sinanthropus pekinensis? More specifically, what differentiated the dental specimens from other species of Homo according to them?

He considered the teeth to be clearly more primitive than Neanderthals and distinct from Java Man, but the latter point would come to be disputed which is why it eventually gets subsumed under the same species. I'm not sure what to put down other than "different from Neanderthal and Java Man" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is no mention of any synonymization process of the genus and species as far as I can see. When were they synonymized with H. erectus and why? At what point was the species converted into species rank, and why is it under H. erectus? How did consensus over its taxonomy evolve over time?

added a little more of Weidenreich's ideas, but when Mayr lumped everything into H. erectus there wasn't really any pushback. It's under erectus because of priority Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Remember that a featured article has to be comprehensive, and the taxonomy of one species of Homo isn't an exception here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made a major expansion which more fully fleshes out your two points Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps the role of Black could be emphasised a bit more, pointing out that finding human ancestors had been his main motive to move to China in 1919, and that he was the driving force behind the ambitious plan to deeply excavate the Zhoukoudian with a large labour contingent, which took effect after 27 March 1927.--MWAK (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a note about why Black was in Beijing, and that Bohlin oversaw excavation since Black was too tied up at the Peking Medical College. Where did you get the date of 27 March? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus

I'm going to take on this one to prevent myself from burning out going through the Years in paleontology pages. Compiling a list of citations. Feel free to add any I miss, I'll be sure to include all those below in some capacity.

Bibliography

• Lambe, L.M. (1902). "New genera and species from the Belly River Series (Mid-Cretaceous)". Geological Survey of Canada. Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology. Part II. On Vertebrata of the Mid-Cretaceous of the North west Territory. 3 (2): 25–81.
• Osborn, H.F. (1902). "Distinctive characters of the Mid-Cretaceous fauna". Geological Survey of Canada. Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology. Part II. On Vertebrata of the Mid-Cretaceous of the North west Territory. 3 (2): 5–21.
• Lambe, L.M. (1914). "On a new genus and species of carnivorous dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, with a description of the skull of Stephanosaurus marginatus from the same horizon". The Ottawa Naturalist. 28 (1): 13–20.
• Parks, W.A. (1923). "Corythosaurus intermedius, a new species of trachodont dinosaur". University of Toronto. Geological Studies. 15: 5–57.
• Matthew, W.D. (1920). "Canadian Dinosaurs". Natural History. 20: 536–544.
• Gilmore, C.W. (1924). "On the genus Stephanosaurus, with a description of the type specimen of Lambeosaurus lambei Parks". National Museum of Canada Bulletin. Geological Series. 38 (43): 29–48.
• Parks, W.A. (1931). "A new genus and two new species of trachodont dinosaurs from the Belly River Formation of Alberta". University of Toronto. Geological Studies. 31: 1–11.
• Sternberg, C.M. (1935). "Hooded Hadrosaurs of the Belly River Series of the Upper Cretaceous". National Museum of Canada Bulletin. Geological Series. 77 (52): 1–38.
• Lull, R.S.; Wright, N.E. (1942). "Hadrosaurian Dinosaurs of North America". Geological Society of America Special Papers. 40: 1–272. doi:10.1130/SPE40-p1.
• Ostrom, J.H. (1964). "The systematic position of Hadrosaurus (Ceratops) paucidens Marsh". Journal of Paleontology. 38 (1): 130–134. JSTOR 1301503.
• Rozhdestvensky, A.K. (1968). "Гадрозавры Казахстана" [Hadrosaurs of Kazakhstan]. In Tatarinov, L.P. (ed.). Верхнепалеозойские и мезозойские земноводные и пресмыкающиеся СССР [Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles of the USSR] (in Russian). Академии наук СССР. pp. 97–141.
• Dodson, P. (1975). "Taxonomic implications of relative growth in lambeosaurine hadrosaurs". Systematic Zoology. 24 (1): 37–54. doi:10.2307/2412696.
• Hopson, J.A. (1975). "The evolution of cranial display structures in hadrosaurian dinosaurs". Paleobiology. 1 (1): 21–43. Bibcode:1975Pbio....1...21H. doi:10.1017/S0094837300002165. JSTOR 2400327. S2CID 88689241.
• Horner, J.R. (1979). "Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Bearpaw Shale (marine) of south-central Montana with a checklist of Upper Cretaceous dinosaur remains from marine sediments in North America". Journal of Paleontology. 53 (3): 566–577. JSTOR 1303998.
• Horner, J.R.; Weishampel, D.B.; Forster, C.A. (2004). "Hadrosauridae". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 438–463. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
• Norman, D.B.; Sues, H.-D. (2000). "Ornithopods from Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Siberia". In Benton, M.J.; Shishkin, M.A.; Unwin, D.M.; Kurochkin, E.N. (eds.). The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 462–479. ISBN 978-0-521-55476-3.
• Bell, P.R.; Brink, K.S. (2013). "Kazaklambia convincens comb. nov., a primitive juvenile lambeosaurine from the Santonian of Kazakhstan". Cretaceous Research. 45: 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2013.05.003.
• Glut, D.F. (1997). "Lambeosaurus". Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. McFarland & Co. pp. 525–533. ISBN 978-0-89950-917-4.
• Lund, E.K.; Gates, T.A. (2006). "A historical and biogeographical examination of hadrosaurian dinosaurs". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 35: 263–276.
• Morris, W.J. (1981). "A new species of hadrosaurian dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Baja California: ?Lambeosaurus laticaudus". Journal of Paleontology. 55 (2): 453–462. JSTOR 1304231.
• Prieto-Márquez, A.; Chiappe, L.M.; Joshi, S.H. (2012). "The lambeosaurine dinosaur Magnapaulia laticaudus from the Late Cretaceous of Baja California, Northwestern Mexico". PLoS ONE. 7 (6): e38207. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...738207P. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038207. PMC 3373519. PMID 22719869.
• Evans, D.C.; Forster, C.A.; Reisz, R.R. (2005). "The type specimen of Tetragonosaurus erectofrons (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) and the identification of juvenile lambeosaurines". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 349–366. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
• Evans, D.C.; Reisz, R.R. (2007). "Anatomy and relationships of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus, a crested hadrosaurid dinosaur (Ornithischia) from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27 (2): 373–393. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[373:AAROLM]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0272-4634. S2CID 86070917.
• Paul, G.S. (2024). The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 368–373. ISBN 978-0-691-23157-0.
• Sullivan, R.M.; Jasinsky, S.E.; Guenther, M.; Lucas, S.G. (2009). "The first lambeosaurin (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae, Lambeosaurinae) from the Upper Cretaceous Ojo Alamo Formation (Naashoibito Member), San Juan Basin, New Mexico". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 53: 405–417.
• Xing, H.; Gu, W.; Hai, S.; Yu, T.; Han, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S. (2022). "Osteological and taxonomic reassessments of Sahaliyania elunchunorum (Dinosauria, Hadrosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous Yuliangzi Formation, northeast China". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 41 (6): e2085111. doi:10.1080/02724634.2021.2085111. S2CID 250463301.
• Bakker, R.T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and their Extinction. William Morrow. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-8217-2859-8.
• Norman, D.B. (1985). "Hadrosaurids II". The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs: An Original and Compelling Insight into Life in the Dinosaur Kingdom. Crescent Books. pp. 122–127. ISBN 978-0-517-46890-6.
• Weishampel, D.B. (1981). "Acoustic analyses of potential vocalization in lambeosaurine dinosaurs (Reptilia: Ornithischia)". Paleobiology. 7 (2): 252–261. Bibcode:1981Pbio....7..252W. doi:10.1017/S0094837300004036. JSTOR 2400478. S2CID 89109302.
• Weishampel, D.B.; Barrett, P.M.; Coria, R.A.; Le Loeuff, J.; Xu, X.; Zhao, X.; Sahni, A.; Gomani, E.M.P.; Noto, C.R. (2004). "Dinosaur Distribution". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 517–606. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
• Eberth, D.A. (2005). "The geology". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 54–82. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
• Braman, D.R.; Koppelhus, E.B. (2005). "Campanian palynomorphs". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 101–130. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
• Ryan, M.J.; Evans, D.C. (2005). "Ornithischian Dinosaurs". In Currie, P.J.; Koppelhus, E.B. (eds.). Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press. pp. 312–348. ISBN 978-0-253-34595-0.
• Storer, J.E. (1972). "A Duck-Billed Dinosaur: Lambeosaurus". Provincial Museum & Archives of Alberta. Museum and Archive Notes. 13: 1–4.

IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Wow, great! I found two scripts that make it easier to rename all references (format "eberth2005") and move them all to the bottom of the article; I can do that if it helps? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that can definitely be done. What are the scripts called (for future use)? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Will write-up some documentation for these scripts at some point. Will be happy to copy-edit and/or review the article if needed; in the meantime I will try to get Massospondylus done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• At this point, if someone wants to begin some revisions or copyediting of the Discovery, Description, and Classification sections, that would be good. I don't think I have any more text to add to those areas, and they are probably the most likely to need trimming or sprucing up. I'll be continuing with the remainder soon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll try and give more extensive comments when I can, but the first thing stands out to me is Didanodon. The naming of the species is brought up, and then the naming of the genus, but it's never made clear why this is relevant or tied back to Lambeosaurus. My understanding is some association has been made between Didanodon and Lambeosaurus, but it's not formally considered a synonym and is indeterminate materially. So I think either we need to justify a connection to Lambeosaurus and explain it, or cut at least the part about naming the subgenus out of the article. It's also worth noting that "Didanodon" redirects to Lambeosaurus but Trachodon altidens redirects to Trachodon, which makes little sense. I believe this consistency originates with The Dinosauria making the same bizarre listing, but surely we can do something better about it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll wait until the whole thing is done before I review, so I can get an overall impression. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to do some copy edits; I will start as soon as time allows. Quick comment for now: Do we really need that image that is currently under "Integument"? It is identical to the image of the same specimen further up in the article, except that the crest is cut off. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Not particularly. It might be fine to just have no images for that section I don't have any clearer images of the TMP skin. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The entire body text is now completed I believe, all that remains is the lede but I'd rather write that last to make sure that nothing removed from or added to the body is left unnoticed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• The "Discovery and species" section is a bit difficult to follow - a lot of finds and names are thrown at the reader, some of which do never appear again. In the second paragraph, I also have trouble understanding which of the specimens are discussed. Specifically:
  • and determined from the nearly complete skull of one individual that T. marginatus belonged in a new genus – this still refers to the 1913 Sternberg specimens, but apparently those are "referred" specimens, so no. So which one is the holotype of Stephanosaurus, exactly?
  • As a result, Brown considered the identity of the skulls as uncertain – what "skulls"? I remember only one skull mentioned.
  • The first paragraph seems to go into detail about a lot of specimens and species that are not strictly relevant for the naming of Lambeosaurus (only T. marginatus seems to be)? But in the second paragraph, you cover apparently important specimens actually belonging to Lambeosaurus (e.g., Lambe, in 1920, referred another even more perfect skull to Stephanosaurus) with barely a sentence.
  • I wonder if it could help to first focus just on the specimens that were actually named Lambeosaurus, and discuss the rest separately, in sections like "Misidentified specimens" or similar. But I first need to understand the history to get an overview to be able to make any sensible suggestion.
    • The above revisions to the first section have been attempted. Its a bit problematic and hard for even me to understand. Lambe named marginatus for CMN 419. Then Lambe tried to designate CMN 361 and CMN 362 as type. Then Lambe describes CMN 351. Then Lambe describes CMN 2869. Then Parks names Lambeosaurus for CMN 351 and CMN 2869 without designating a type. Then Gilmore specifies CMN 2869 is the type, citing Lambe 1914 as preferring it even though it wasn't found until 1917. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• The Palaeoenvironment might have a focus issue, as it contains a lot of info that may be offtopic here (e.g., Six small lizards are known, representing five different families, with the teiids Socognathus and Glyptogenys, the xenosaurid Exostinus, the helodermatid Labrodioctes, the necrosaurid Parasaniwa, and the varanid Palaeosaniwa. No snakes are known, which, while it contrasts with the modern diversity of the group, does correspond with the rarity of the group during the Cretaceous.). I think it is good to mention the groups with some example genera, but I'm not sure we should have much more than that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've cut back the content to remove discussions, as well as a bit of rearranging into "microfauna" and "megafauna" as the non-taxonomic notes suggest it should be. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Berry Creek and Dear Lodge canyon – If we can't link those locations, I think that pointing them out is a bit useless: The reader has no idea where these are, other than somewhere in Alberta along the Red Deer River. Maybe just remove?
• Canadian palaeontologist Lawrence M. Lambe participated in three expeditions – "participated in" confuses me. That seems to imply that he did not led the expeditions, but I can't find that in the source (in which he says that it was his own action).
• T. selwyni was named for a jaw with many teeth and a provisionally-referred femur – This one has nothing to do with Lambeosaurus, right? If so, I would say remove it to keep focus. It is very confusing if species are introduced to this detail that are never mentioned again, and not what the reader would expect.
• The half skull and limb bones Lambe noted – I don't see any "half skull and limb bones" mentioned previously, so to what does this refer?
• from around 6.4 km (4 mi) southeast of mouth of Little Sandhill Creek, 30 m (100 ft) below the top of the Belly River beds – again I do not think this will help any reader, at least as long it does not get further context. I would remove that.
• specimens collected by the Sternbergs in 1913 – previoulsy, you stated that C.H.Sternberg was collecting, not the whole family? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've made all the changes so far except the references to Berry Creek, Deadlodge Canyon, and Little Sandhill Creek. I'm not sure how to handle these. They can all be referenced to the Canadian Geographical database where they are mapped, but is that something to have as an inline note? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I like it, I think it's very useful. Alternatively, we could even think about doing our own map showing the locations, but I think these notes should do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Good to know. Almost all Canadian localities should have these tags for future reference. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• To Stephanosaurus he assigned the original material of T. marginatus he described in 1902, as well as two of the specimens found in 1913 by Sternberg – Do these two Sternberg specimens include CMN 351, or are these two additional ones? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Including. What the other specimen is at this point is somewhat lost to time. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• "He found that the type material of Stephanosaurus could not be the same taxon as the skulls and may belong to Kritosaurus''" – should this be "cannot be the same taxon" or "might not be the same taxon"?
• In 1931, Parks described more small crested hadrosaurs – hadrosaurs with a small crest, or small hadrosaurs with a crest?
• was referred to by the name Procheneosaurus by American paleontologist William Diller Matthew – That sounds as if the name already existed – it was not Matthew himself who named it? (If he named it, just say "was named Procheneosaurus by …") --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  First two completed. For the third, its a bit of a complicated situation. Matthew didn't necessarily intend to create a new genus name. He probably just used one of the informal named Brown gave to everything, in writing, which has been interpreted by some as enough to consider Procheneosaurus an available name, while others think that "Procheneosaurus" is a nomen nudum. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If this can be properly sourced, it might be worth explaining this in a footnote, as I think that other readers might wonder about this, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Lull and Wright considered the description of Procheneosaurus to be sufficient to identify that Matthew was referring to AMNH 5340 – This is confusing, as it was not previously mentioned that the specimen Matthew was referring to was contentious (you contradictingly stated that "One particularly small individual discovered by Brown, which was displayed as a panel mount at the AMNH, was referred to by the name Procheneosaurus").
• could not be distinguished from the Tetragonosaurus species on a generic level. – Do we need to distinguish a species on the generic level, or can we shorten this to "could not be distinguished from Tetragonosaurus" when it's generic level anyways? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Dodson reassessed the 3 genera and 12 species of lambeosaur – This is confusing, as in the following you name at least five genera (Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, Hypacrosaurus, Cheneosaurus, Procheneosaurus). Maybe list them directly already in the first paragraph?
• American paleontologist William J. Morris even argued that there is very little that separates Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus beyond the skull anatomy – What did he suggest here? That the three genera are synonyms? If so, that should be made explicit. If he didn't, it doesn't seem relevant enough to organise the entire paragraph around this statement.
• and that a specimen from Baja California – in the next sentence, you speak of "Baja California specimens" in plural? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  This has all been adjusted and restructured. Theres a nice quote from Matthew in Sternberg 1953 where he believed "Procheneosaurus" was a nomen nudum, so that is included and should help with understanding. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Dodson also proposed that variation among individuals of the same size was due to sexual dimorphism, resulting in the identifications of CMN 8503 (referred to C. intermedius), ROM 869 (type of C. frontalis), CMN 351 and YPM 3222 (referred to L. clavinitialis), and CMN 8703 (type of L. clavinitialis) as females of L. lambei, and CMN 2869, ROM 1218, ROM 5131, AMNH 5353 and AMNH 5373 (all previously referred to L. lambei) as males of L. lambei. – This sentence is extremely hard to read. Maybe we could simplify it a bit and move those specimen numbers into a footnote?
• Dodson's interpretation of the low-crested "cheneosaurs" (Cheneosaurus and Procheneosaurus) – Why is Cheneosaurus not mentioned in the first paragraph when listing the genera that Dodson worked on? This is a bit confusing.
• beyond the anatomy of the skull, preventing a confident identification of any material that lacks the crest. – should it say "crest" or "skull"?
• Unfortunately, I got completely swamped with work in RL and won't be able to do much work for Wikipedia at least until May. I am deeply sorry. I will try to provide more input whenever I get a free minute, but don't rely on me. Maybe somebody else could take over to get this one ready for the final FA-level review? Pinging others involved, IJReid, A Cynical Idealist, FunkMonk. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  These comments have been taken care of. Good luck with work, it is priority after all. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll start a full review soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• As a result, L. clavinitialis has been identified as separate in following studies, occurring alongside L. lambei in the older deposits of the Dinosaur Park Formation, while L. magnicristatus is younger, but more restricted than L. lambei only being found within the lower formation. – Confused here. Does this mean that clavinitialis and lambei are in the older and magnicristatus is in the younger, or is lambei in both the older and younger?

• AMNH 5382, ROM 869, CMN 8703, YPM 3222 and TMP 1981.37.1 have all been referred to L. clavinitialis, while AMNH 5353, AMNH 5373, CMN 351, CMN 2869, CMN 8503, ROM 794, ROM 1218, FMNH 380, FMNH 1479, TMP 1982.38.1, and TMP 1997.012.0128 have been referred to L. lambei, and some specimens cannot be identified to the species level. – This is not really readable prose; maybe consider writing "a total of five specimens … while 11 specimens have been assigned to L. lambei …", and move the specimen numbers into a footnote?

• Last paragraph of "Discovery" section: I wonder if the referral to Magnapaulia and Kazaklambia should instead be discussed earlier, together with the other information on those specimens. The discovery section is super long, and a reader is unlikely to remember that information over multiple paragraphs. It might be easier to follow that way. It would violate chronology, however, so I'm not sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Inside the crests, which are slightly broad, – What does "slightly broad" mean? That's not very helpful.
• The predentary is crescentric, forming the beak between the joint of the two dentaries, – the beak between the joint? I can't follow. (Also, probably no need to mention "beak" here as you mention it later in that sentence).
• along the center of the side possessing enamel. – Unsure here, too. "Outer side"?
• in L. magnicristatus this expansion is much smaller, and the entire projection is relatively shorter – isn't "the entire projection is relatively shorter" just repeating "expansion is much smaller" or am I missing something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  All these should be done, though I didn't adjust the placement of Kazaklambia and Magnapaulia. Their paragraph is fairly standalone and could go anywhere from the end of the "identification of juveniles" to end of "redescription of species". Maybe being the first paragraph of the latter section works better? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Other results since have found Lambeosaurus as the earliest genus of lambeosaurin,[63][64][65] closest to Corythosaurus – "Lambeosaurinae"? And did they really say "earliest", or should it be "basal"?
• The complexity makes lambeosaurines some of the most specialized ornithopods. – What complexity? Are the batteries more complex in lambeosaurines than in hadrosaurines? If so, that should be mentioned.
• involving flexing and joints in the jaws – Unclear. What is being flexed here?
• contributed to the two-direction chewing motion of hadrosaurs – this remains a bit vague, and it is never stated what the motion actually is. Can this be briefly described?
• implying different methods of dietary shifts during growth – can't follow; what dietary shifts did Lambeosaurus show?
• Weishampel proposed in 1981 that it was possible to assess the functionality of the crest as a resonating chamber by creating three-dimensional models of the crests and assessing their resonance and harmonics. The internal nasal passages of Parasaurolophus are simpler and easier to investigate than those of Lambeosaurus and Corythosaurus, but the difference in anatomy between the latter two would presumably produce distinct vocalization frequencies. Therefore, Weishampel – Did he model Parasaurolophus to produce sounds? You never say what he actually did, and it is unclear why Parasaurolophus is mentioned.
• Based on the study of other hadrosaurs, it has been identified that the development of the crest began late in growth, with the exception of Parasaurolophus. – Are you still talking about Lambeosaurus here or is that now about Lambeosaurinae?
• Throughout their maturation, the skulls of Lambeosaurus and other lambeosaurines increased in length by an order of magnitude, — only one order of magnitude from hatchling to adult?
• Skulls of juvenile Lambeosaurus individuals are generally more complete than those of Corythosaurus and they are comparable to and slightly larger than those of Hypacrosaurus. – That confuses me quite a bit. That they are more complete is not really about the topic (growth), right, so that's confusing to mention here. But how can we even compare the relative sizes of juvenile skulls between species without knowing their exact ontogenetic stages?
• and in L. magnicristatus, the crest also grew very tall and towards the front of the snout, – isn't that already mentioned under "Description" and redundant here?
• with a spur also developing late in growth. – why "also", what else is developing late in growth?
• The fontanelle between the nasal and premaxilla described by Maryañska and Osmólska does not show a clear signal during growth, – not sure what "does not show a clear signal" is supposed to mean, I guess this has to be explained in plain language. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• I made it now finally, that's everything! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  All comments have been dealt with. I've redone most of the growth section to arrange it better and include more details in a more understandable way. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Cynical Idealist

My review is forthcoming. I want it to be extremely thorough. I did a small copy edit on the first paragraph to help improve the flow of the sentences, but I stopped there because I didn't feel comfortable doing the same to the remaining paragraphs because the exact ideas trying to be communicated was unclear to me and I didn't want to alter the meaning of any of the text. My preliminary observation is to agree with Jens above, specifically:

• “A later Geological Survey expedition in 1913 resulted in American paleontologist…” - This paragraph is extremely confusing. Some of these sentences are run-on or otherwise too complex. For example, in the first sentence, its not clear what it is exactly that Lambe described. Did he describe the hadrosaur specimen, the skin impressions, or the stretch of river on which it was found?

Discovery and species

• "Royal Ontatio Museum specimen 3577" - I don't see any reason to avoid the abbreviation "ROM 3577" with a link to the museum's article. This is the standard practice across most paleo articles.
• "Among these 18 specimens, Sternberg found that CMN 8703, a nearly complete skeleton with skin, could be referred to Lambeosaurus, while CMN 8503, previously referred, was instead a specimen of Corythosaurus." - The number of commas in this sentence is excessive and makes the exact meaning difficult to parse. Sentences like this are better off divided into several shorter sentences such as "Among the specimens examined was CMN 8703, a nearly complete skeleton with skin impressions. Sternberg found that this specimen could be referred to Lambeosaurus. Conversely, the specimen CMN 8503, which had once been considered Lambeosaurus, was instead a specimen of Corythosaurus" or something along those lines.
• "The extensive species and genera of hadrosaurs was reviewed in 1942 by American paleontologists Richard Swann Lull and Nelda E. Wright" - Its unclear what exactly these authors were reviewing and why.
• Totally optional, but it may be worth adding a bulleted list or table detailing the number of taxa now considered to be junior synonyms of Lambeosaurus, when they were named, and what they are currently considered to be. The text does a good job of explaining the history, but if someone wanted to know the history of a particular taxon (say P. praeceps), it would be very difficult to parse.
• The word "cheneosaurs" is used twice in the article. That word is never defined. Is it used in the literature? Because if not, I would recommend using a more specific word to refer to these specimens.
• "As well as material from Baja California assigned to the new species..." - This clause is unnecessary. It repeats info from the previous sentence, and does not specifically relate to the rest of the sentence.
• "Lambeosaurus was considered to include L. lambei, L. magnicristatus, and ?L. laticaudus..." - After this, the sentence immediately lists a bunch of junior synonyms. I think its important for reading clarity to specifically state that the former three are the only species considered valid by the 1990 review by Weishampel and Horner.
• The sentence beginning, "The type, CMN 8705, was originally..." contains a redundant clause. It contains both "...but prior to being named..." and "...before it was named by Sternberg." One of these should be removed.
• "The suggestion of L. clavinitialis as a separate species..." - This is a run-on sentence and should be divided into multiple sentences.

--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

All of these should be somewhat fixed? But a reread is in order. Its difficult to explain how all the specimens are associated with names etc given the inconsistent (and even just straight wrong) attributions of who found and described what. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Description

• Beginning the description section with "Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus are close relatives..." seems a little disjointed. I would keep the lead paragraph of the section to speaking strictly about Lambeosaurus. Detailed discussions of close relatives can be relegated to the more specific anatomy in the later sections and the classification section.
• It seems odd to discuss the facial skeleton and mandible in great detail, but have the anatomy of the braincase relegated to a single sentence. Not saying you need to add a whole new paragraph, but at least some description beyond "similar to other lambeosaurines" seems appropriate.
• "...with no features of the skeleton distinguishing it from relatives..." - This clause is unclear because the "relatives" are unspecified and the importance of the lack of distinguishing features is not explained.

No other notes specifically for the description, its generally very well-written and the sentences flow much more nicely than in the above section. In the meantime, I'll reread the discovery and species section to see if I have any other thoughts. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the description have been made. I didn't fully remove mention of Corythosaurus and Hypacrosaurus from the first sentence since it is often noted right away, but I moved it to the end so it should focus more on Lambeosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Upon a reread, the Discovery and Species section is greatly improved. It's a much smoother read now. I made one or two copy edits, but otherwise everything is in order.

Classification

• I've made a couple of minor copy-edits myself to some of the sections, but have left anything I wasn't able to understand or interpret to my review.
• "However, Sternberg in 1953 recognized that..." - This sentence is extremely confusing and I was not able to parse its meaning. The family scheme was not able to "distinguish genera"? I'm not exactly sure what that means.
• "...including Nipponosaurus outside a group of Lambeosaurus, Corythosaurus, Hypacrosaurus and Olorotitan..." - This level of granularity is not necessary to explain in the text. The cladogram below should suffice to show this. Verbal explanations of clades should be as simple as possible, in my opinion.

No other notes on the text of the classification section. If you think any of my minor edits were inappropriate or changed the meaning of the text too much, feel free to reword them or revert them. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

These modifications have been made. I see no issue with the copy-edits. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Paleobiology

• "Characterized as suited for diets of herbage, and known from regions with vast vegetation, hadrosaurs have been compared with modern ungulates as dietary analogues." - This sentence is a litte jumbled and the meaning is not clear. Were hadrosaurs suitable analogues for ungulates, or are they only "characterized" (possibly erroneously) in that way? The text does not make clear if that characterization is correct. And also stating something is "compared" and also "an analogue" is redundant. One implies the other.
• "Lambeosaurine anatomy suggests that they would have preferred..." - How does their anatomy suggest this? It isn't elaborated upon and sound a little hand-wavy.
• "The feeding of Lambeosaurus and many hadrosaurs..." - The same idea could be better expressed by the sentence, "Lambeosaurus and other hadrosaurs had a unique feeding apparatus that has been a subject of considerable research." or something along those lines.
• "... and less variability due to growth." - Less variability in what? Their beaks or their front limbs?
• "... it can be compared with the coexisting hadrosaurine Prosaurolophus." - In what way? If the ways Prosaurolophus are differentiated from Lambeosaurus are the same as saurolophines and lambeosaurines more generally, I would list the specific genera as examples first, and then explain that this trend is more widely true for hadrosaurs in other environments. The way it's currently arranged, it just seems like the paragraph ends before the reader gets all the necessary information.
• In general, it would be useful to define what terms like "closed-habitat" and "pitting" are somewhere in the text. The importance of different types of tooth wear are also not explained.

I also did a copy edit of the crest function and growth sections. If I messed anything up of course, then revert those parts, but I hope these sections will read a bit more fluidly. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Changes made. I've mostly reworked the feeding section so its less disjoint and has better connectivity. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I also split up the paleoecology section a bit differently so that there's a clearer split between "paleoenvironment" and "contemporary fauna". A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the sectioning is fair. Reminds me to add that its written in Canadian english (canadian genus) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a quick look at the last section shortly, but given the routine subject matter, I can't imagine there will be too much to correct. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@IJReid: Sorry I forgot to give the final say-so, but I'd support this meeting the updated FA standards. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

FM's FAC-style review

• I'll review bit by bit, first some caption suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• "L. lambei specimen CMN 8503 being excavated in Alberta" could give date in caption?
• "Photo and illustration of Lambeosaurus specimen CMN 351" Mention species?
• Could move the Procheneosaurus image one paragrapgh down both so it's by the text that starts by mentioning it, but also to prevent sandwiching with the skull images (on my screen at least).
• "Tail of Magnapaulia" Perhaps more interesting to show a skeletal instead of just tail vertebrae, which will mean little to most readers?
• The Stephanosaurus and Hypacrosaurus images under classification could establish in their caprions why they're relevant to Lambeosaurus, now the reader doesn't understand why they're there from the captions. I also don't think their specimen numbers are needed, as they're not Lambeosaurus.
  • All above suggestions done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Skeleton of Magnapaulia" caption could state this was originally considered Lambeosaurus, for context.
  • Done
• "identified that the rocks along" Maybe clearer to just say "discovered"? Especially since you again say "identified" in the next sentence.
  • Done
• "and even provided the possible new" Why "even"?
  • Removed
• You sometimes write "paleontologist", though being Canadian English I guess it should be "palaeo".
  • Fixes, probably from autocorrect during subsequent revisions, I think it was all -aeo- when I first wrote it
• "he assigned the original material of T. marginatus he described in 1902" is the bolded part needed? It's not long before you stated this, and it doesn't really add much other than text to be restated.
  • Removed
• "because the type specimen does not include any skull material," Could add "to compare with"?
  • Added
• "his skull was found by Charles Mortram Sternberg" You don't present him, perhaps briefly mention his relation to the earlier mentioned Sternberg?
  • Mentioned relation
• "by American paleontologist Levi Sternberg;" Likewise, then I don't think you necessarily need to mention his nationality and occupation, as the Sternbergs are associated.
  • Same as C.M.
• "southeast of mouth of Little Sandhill Creek" The mouth?
  • Fixed
• "and designated the new genus and species Lambeosaurus lambei for the complete skulls CMN 351 and CMN 2869" Very important to give the date here, as this is when the subject of the article is named.
  • Added
• "who was deceased" State when, for context so we know how long after it happened? Also, it's unclear to me if Lambe was part of discovering the type specimen?
  • Added. It's not in the source that he died in 1919 so maybe a citation for that is needed?

Yeah, if a source can be found for that, could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Added

• "was likely not the same taxon as the skulls and may belong to Kritosaurus" Last part would make more sense as past tense too.
  • Done
• "in 1917 5.6 km (3.5 mi) west of" Could need comma after the year.
  • Added
• "Early beliefs were that the skull and skeleton could have belonged to the same individual" Kind of oddly worded, maybe "it was earlier thought that" or similarly.
  • Done
• "which was exhibited at the AMNH" not sure this is necessary, you just said it was found by the AMNH already.
  • Removed
• "writing to Charles M. Sternberg" Earlier you abbreviated the name, better to be consistent.
  • Done
• "should be considered a nomen nudum." Explain what this means and why.
  • Added
• "was found on 24 June 1930 ca. 3.2 km (2 mi) southeast of Little Sandhill Creek and was excavated and mounted by Levi Sternberg." This is extremely detailed compared to basically all other specimens you mention. Why do we need to know exact date and who it was mounted and excavated by?
  • Simplified
• "by Levi Sternberg ca. 2.4 km (1.5 mi) downriver of Little Sandhill Creek" As above, I think you could just abbreviate all the Sternbergs to their initials followed by lastname, so "L. Sternberg".
  • Done
• " to consolidate the available information into a single consistent source" Is all this needed? I think you could simply spell out and link review article.
  • Done
• "from the Tetragonosaurus" Doesn't need "the".
  • Done
• "also created the combinations" link and spell out new combination.
  • Done
• "which ruled in 1947 in favour of Procheneosaurus" kind of convoluted, "which ruled in favour of of Procheneosaurus in 1947?"
  • Done
• "This specimen had been found in 1961 at the Shakh-Shakh locality 45 km (28 mi) north of Tashkent, as the most complete dinosaur discovered in Kazakhstan," I don't think all this is necessary here, it's not Lambeosaurus.
  • Simplified
• "However, C.M. Sternberg did not support the use of" When did he state this?
  • Added
• "now interpreted as different growth stages and sexes of L. lambei" since you list L. clavinitialis as possibly valid in the taxobox, this caption needs modification. Perhaps say "interpreted by Dodson as being"?
  • Added
• "Polish palaeontologists Teresa Maryańska and Halszka Osmólska concluded that P. convincens is likely a separate species and identified it as "Procheneosaurus" convincens" When?
  • Added
• "In the 1990 review of the Hadrosauridae" why not just "a review"?
  • Modified
• "as valid and diagnostic species" Doesn't both basically mean the same here?
  • Fixed
• "were dubious hadrosaurids and not Lambeosaurus" Could explain what "dubious" means, but if they're undiagnostic, how can it be ruled out they might be Lambeosaurus?
  • Done
• "Dodson had not included the type specimen of T. erectofrons in his analysis of lambeosaurs due to its incomplete skull. However, Evans and colleagues identified features that separated Corythosaurus from Lambeosaurus regardless of age, facilitating the assessments of the juveniles." Why "however"? I don't see what that sentence adresses, as it doesn't mention they found a way to classify without skulls.
  • Removed
• Link and explain "ontogenic stages" earlier, as you do go into the subject before where you now link it.
  • Mentioned earlier
• " It has been displayed since mid-1969" Is this detail needed? You don't give such detail to other specimens.
  • Removed
• "The redescription by Evans and Reisz" - "The 2007 redescription" would be less wordy.
  • Done
• Link stratigraphic.
  • Done
• Link and explain chronospecies.
  • Done. Explanation of evolutionary lineage is satisfactory I think
• "It was included in the phylogenetic analysis of Hai Xing" What does "it" refer to? The preceding sentence mentions more than one species.
  • Added
• "It was included in the phylogenetic analysis of Hai Xing and colleagues in 2022 as a separate species for the first time and found to be more distant, with L. lambei and L. magnicristatus as sister taxa,[44] and its crest morphometrics also differ significantly from L. lambei and L. magnicristatus.[43]" If the last part of the sentence is cited to another paper, you should mention the date and first author as well.
  • Modified
• "after Paul G. Haaga Jr. for his support of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County" Not needed, you barely even give etymologies of the Lambeosaurus species, so isn't needed for a different genus (which you don't give etymologies for either).
  • Removed
• "in honour of the country it was found in" Likwise.
  • Removed
• "and the taxa Jaxartosaurus and Aralosaurus found nearby" Not sure this detail is needed here.
  • Retained Jaxartosaurus since it is mentioned earlier but reworded
• "It has been found to be an early member of Lambeosaurini and relatively far from Lambeosaurus.[46]" Distantly related to would be clearer.
  • Done
• You inconsistently write Procheneosaurus or "Procheneosaurus".
  • I write it depending on what the interpretation of its status is. Matthew and Sternberg have it as a nomen nudum, so "Procheneosaurus" is appropriate, while Lull and the ICZN consider the name valid so Procheneosaurus is appropriate.
• It was argued once that the bent shape of the tail in this mount[3] was inaccurate, so I wonder if it's a representative image for the description section rather than discovery? Not a great photo, but this mount is at least more accurate:[4]
  • I think the restoration needed modification but the mount should be good, it has a more gradual curve. I prefer the TMP mount to the other because its possible to identify what specimen it is, the other is probably? a composite cast without any history
• The tail on this restoration was modified for the same reason, but was since tagged as inaccurate due to something with the skull, it could be fixed if we wanted to use it anyway:[5]
  • I think the restoration is useable if the crest can be broadened slightly. The NT images are also a bit too flat but their lack of perspective lets them get away with it. The TMP skull images on commons are good references for the crest breadth
• A bit of a shame we don't have a fuller photo of this[6] specimen, I think it would make for a better taxobox photo since the skull seems to be real.
  • I've not been able to find anything good for it but it would definitely be useful if we do.
• "L. lambei, L. magnicristatus , and L. clavinitialis would have reached around 7–7.7 m (23–25 ft) in length, and 2.6–3.4 t (2.6–3.3 long tons; 2.9–3.7 short tons) in weight, respectively." What is meant with "respectively" when you give the same measurements for all species?
  • Reduced. Technically Paul gives different sizes for them, but its such a small margin of difference I don't think its worth giving too much weight to his estimates. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• "but is consistently perpendicular to the snout and with a rear "spur"." But it appears L. magnicristatus didn't have a spur? Now it reads as it's a common feature for the entire genus.
  • Clarified
• On the other hand, is what's seen at the back here considered a "spur"?[7] If so, our restorations of that species don't seem to show it clearly, could be modified?
  • I don't think so, the "spur" is generally elevated and more elongate. It probably wouldn't be separated from the rear skull in L. magnicristatus so our reconstructions appear okay
• "but premaxilla bifurcating the nasal in Corythosaurus" not sure what this means, premaxillary bifurcation of the nasal?
  • Reworded
• "which is debated in function" Not sure if this is needed under description.
  • Cut
• "where the branches of the premaxilla and nasal that make the crest meet" seems "that" is unneeded.
  • Done
• "with the suggestion that once fully closed, the crest would not be able to change shape any further." A bit oddly worded, perhaps "and once fully closed, it's possible that the crest would not be able to change shape further"?
  • Revised
• "the premaxilla contributed entirely to the snout of Lambeosaurus" May be hard to follow, perhaps make it clearer that the "snout consisted entirely of the premaxillae"?
  • Reworded
• "Beneath, it is braced by the maxilla, which is large and contains 39 to 40 uniform teeth in closely-packed dental battery." Seems to jump around in present and past tense, probably good to keep consistent if possible.
  • Tense is a bit of an iffy place for me but should be better in spots
• "in closely-packed dental battery" dental batteries or a dental battery?
  • Added
• If possible, would be good to have etymologies for at least the names of the valid species.
  • If we are able to find anything on their etymologies it'll definitely be included, but as of right now I haven't been able to find any sources
• "Almost all of the crest is formed by the premaxillae of the snout" It seems from the images that a significant part of the "spur" actually consists of the nasals, worth pointing out?
  • Added
• "The dentary is large, with an elongate and downturned region in the snout that lacks teeth" At the font? Kind of unusual to call the front of the lower jaw "the snout".
  • Reworded
• "that slots on the inside of the jugal when the jaws close." Seems this would make sense as past tense.
  • Revised
• "is known from regions left in place along the neck" is the "in place" part needed? Not sure what it means.
  • Reworded
• "L. magnicristatus can be separated by the skull and one feature of the pelvis from all other lambeosaurines" A shame not to mention these features then?
  • Done
• "The pubic bone however, differs between the taxa: while in L. lambei and Corythosaurus it is bulbous with a large expansion in front of the hip joint, in L. magnicristatus this expansion is much smaller, and the entire projection is relatively shorter." If this is the difference mentioned above, I think that could be made clearer, by somehow merging or consolidating the now disparate sentences.
  • Adjusted this
• Why specifically show Hypacrosaurus as a close relative under classification when the cladogram shows both Amurosaurus and Corythosaurus as closer relatives?
  • Hypacrosaurus and Corythosaurus are equally closely related, and the choice is honestly more illustrative than anything else, the Hypacrosaurus image shows the entire mount and doesn't have any background noise. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• "The initial Canadian discoveries of hadrosaurs by Lambe had them referred to the family Trachodontidae as species of Trachodon" Could be clearer to say "assigned them to the family Trachodontidae".

• "where the greatest similarities were identified with Saurolophus" could be clearer and simpler as "with Saurolophus being most similar".

• "Brown separated the crested skulls of Lambe and Saurolophus from Trachodon" A bit odd to say he separated the "skulls" from a genus, how about he separated the crested genera from Trachodon?

• "Stephanosaurinae couldn't" contractions are discouraged.

• "since Stephanosaurinae couldn't be used for the group of crested hadrosaurs." Why, because the genus was a nomen nudum? Could maybe be clarified in a footnote.

• " noted that the material of Trachodon" Perhaps add "limited material"?

• Mot sure Mongolian and Kazakhstan should be linked, as we usually don't link countries.

• "The review of North American Hadrosauridae by Lull and Wright supported" Could repeat year.

• "which is a classification he reiterated in 1954" You could lose "which is".

• "It was recognized in 2011" By who?

• Could probably be useful to list some of the features that are today used to unite lambeosaurins.

• "and recognition of it as the senior synonym of Sahaliyania" Not sure this part is needed here.

• "that the updated anatomy of Amurosaurus showed many features shared with Lambeosaurus" I think this could be simplified to "that the reevaluated anatomy of Amurosaurus had many similarities with Lambeosaurus" or similar.

• "that it wasn't purely" Contraction.

• "but maintain a consistent proportion through growth" consistent proportions?

• "and trace fossils of uncertain confidence" This is very vague, what does it mean, coprolites?

• "generalist browsing" Could link to something, at least browsing.

• I see a good deal of duplinks, some pretty close to each other, highlighted by this script:[8]

• "to have consumed high-fibre diets" had high-fibre diets? I'm not sure you can consume a diet, the diet is more the sum of your food items, I assume.

• "that Lambeosaurus browser in more closed" Browsed?
  • All of the above are done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• "Barnum Brown believed that the crest", " In 1962, John Ostrom proposed", "David Weishampel proposed that" Here and other places you repeat the full names of people, though you should only do that at first mention.
  • Done
• Link olfactory bulb.
  • Done
• "David Weishampel proposed that" When?
  • Done
• "but that the difference in anatomy between" Seems "that" is unneeded.
  • Done
• Any later evaluation of the sexual dimorphism idea? Now it almost reads as fact, because there is no rebuttal, but I'm not sure I've heard any recent support for sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs in general?
  • Appears to be as far as the crest discussion goes. Hadrosaurids aren't included in the "maybe not sexual dimorphism" papers of recent. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• "that the brain anatomy are consistent" Should be "is", as brain anatomy is singular.
  • Done
• " consisting of around 90 m (300 ft) of the late Campanian ecosystem" I'm not sure one can say a formation consists of an ecosystem, perhaps represents an ecosystem?
  • Reworded
• "in age at lasting from" As lasting from?
  • Fix
• "and a form like Achelousaurus" Probably a bit hard to understand, maybe "a ceratopsid similar to".
  • Done
• Link sinuosity and microfossil.
  • Done
• "of dense vegetation, and as the seaway approached some areas would see" I think there should be comma after "approached"?
  • Added
• "show that mollusks were commonly dominated by the freshwater clam Sphaerium" a bit oddly worded, sounds like it downloaded the other molluscs. Maybe say they were most commonly found or something.
  • Reworded
• "are present in the fluvial beds of the Dinosaur Park Formation" Since we're only talking about one formation, I don't think you have to spell the name our every time, just "the formation" after first mention in the section.
  • Reduced after the section focuses on the formation faunal content
• I wonder if some of the faunal listing is a bit too detailed. For example, do we need to know the names of so many mammal genera, instead of just a few examples? Same with other clades.
  • I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand I don't think the second paragraph on large-bodied fauna should be cut, its already a good synthesis, but I do see how the listing in the first paragraph is a bit excessive. I think I either leave all genera as it is right now, or list no genera, because choosing between eg the mammal genera which is most "notable" is a bit subjective. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• "with L. lambei and L. clavinitialis being 100% complete and L. magnicristatus being 81% complete" This means how much of their skeletons are known? I think this is significant enough to mention under discovery or description. A bit hidden in a random sentence in the last section now.
  • Moved to discovery
• Stegoceras sternbergi and Stegoceras brevis" These names seem to be outdated?
  • I'd rather follow the source than worry about species designations, especially since taxa like Hanssuesia are possibly not valid anyways (see 2023 Gravitholus paper). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• "The first skull of Lambeosaurus described was used by palaeontologist Lawrence M. Lambe to justify the creation of the new genus Stephanosaurus, but it was shown that this skull had to belong to a separate taxon, which William A. Parks named Lambeosaurus lambei in 1923, to honour Lambe. " This seems a bit too wordy and convoluted. I think it could both be simplified and perhaps split into two sentences.
  • Better?
• "are understood to be some of the most specialized ornithopods." I'm not seeing this elaborated on in the article body.
  • Found its source and added
• "used as an resonating device" a resonating (starts with a consonant).
  • Done
• You have some ize/ise inconsistencies, you seem to mainly use ize, but then you also have "vocalisation".
  • Canadian english is weird and has a preference for "vocalise" specifically with an -ise. Apparently its like a 60/40 preference split from looking it up. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• "with a secondary function of being used for sexual or species identification. " Could probably just be "with a secondary function of sexual or species identification".
  • Done
• "Skin impressions are known from three individuals of Lambeosaurus, and show that it had unornamented scales across the entire body." I don't think we need to include the number of specimens in a summary.
  • Removed
• "and sometimes possesses a backwards spur." Could specify it's in some species, and if it's only in adults. In the article body too, if that isn't already stated.
  • Added to lede, in body too
• "The crest also allows for the identification of juveniles of Lambeosaurus, which are otherwise nearly indistinguishable from juveniles of Corythosaurus." Perhaps I forgot it in the article body, but is it stated there how they can be distinguished?
  • Mentioned in first paragraph of "Skull" (the splitting of the premaxilla by the nasal)
• " It has also been identified that some of the species of the genera Tetragonosaurus and Corythosaurus are juveniles of Lambeosaurus" Perhaps "some species earlier identified as belonging to Tetragonosaurus and Corythosaurus are now considered juveniles of Lambeosaurus", and I don't think you need to name those species there.
  • Done

Everything is done at this point with a few comments on points of uncertainty etc. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I'd support this at a regular FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

One final comment, why is there no size comparison diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we really have a good image to use as one, plus there isn't much space. I'd rather a life restoration than a size diagram, and the ones we do have have some questionable anatomy so at this point I think its better to not include one. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean we could request a new one (SlateWeasel could probably make a nice one). I don't think the restoration would have to be replaced, and it's nice for consistency across articles to have size diagrams. One way to make it fit could be adding the size diagram at the top of description where size is discussed, then moving the photo of the limbs a paragraph up, thereby making space and adding the restoration under integument. Another could be to have one of the images in the now empty beginning of the palaeobiology section. I think either a diagram or restoration would be fine there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. I guess the request can be made it we feel it is important to have. I think the top of Paleobiology would be where it looks best for me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Good idea with the fauna size comparison in that section, hadn't seen it, because it isn't tagged with genus categories. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Image suggestions

• Seems the article is already attracting a lot of prose review, so for now I'll leave some suggestions about the imagery. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Since you mentioned the Pacific Museum mount may not be Lambeosaurus, I wonder if it's appropriate to use it as an example of postcranial featues in that section (which should probably be renamed "postcranial skeleton", as the skull is part of the skeleton). Don't we have other images focusing on skeletal elements of definite Lambeosaurus?
  • None uploaded. I have some of the TMP mount but they aren't particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps some older papers have some, like the images in Sternberg 1935.

Yeah, I was just about to add that there must be PD photos of individual elements in some of the older papers we could use. If a lot of individual images, we could put them in a multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• There was a skull photo[9] under feeding before which seemed fitting, but it has been removed for some reason.

• Likewise, there are images of juvenile skulls[10] that could be used under growth. In fact, I think that photo would work better in the skull section, and then the more complete ontogeny photo now under skull would make sense in the growth section?

• There are two good ABelov2014 images so far unused that could maybe be used under palaeobiology or palaeoecology, what do you think?[11][12] I can modify eventual inaccuracies, the biggest one seems to be that Avaceratops is shown alongside them, which, as far as I know, didn’t live with them. Perhaps their identity could be changed or they could be cropped or painted out.
  • Parasaurolophus didn't coexist with L. magnicristatus, so thats a bit of an issue, but both can be uploaded regardless just to give some more possibilities for use or function. There may also be images in the PLoS papers cited that I've missed to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

They may also be redundant compared to the images already in the paleoecology section, perhaps no need for two restorations of a Lambeosaurus group being chased by tyrannosaurs. The one with the Parasaurolophus also seems to show L. magnicristatus with a little spike at the back of the crest, which I guess is inaccurate, and coupled with other inaccuracies, it's probably not worth the time to fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the first image is good to not use. The second has more potential given all the taxa (except Avaceratops) lived together, but it is also probably not needed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not a huge deal, but subjects of images could face the text where possible, per MOS (mainly thinking of the ontogeny heads restoration).
  • I've tried to restructure and reorient images in a way that works for my monitor. If there are other adjustments to make feel free to make or suggest them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I see they were removed, but I do think we should figure photos of all the species (if room is lacking, they should take precedence over showing related taxa, which now take up a lot of space), perhaps a multiple image template including these:[13][14]

I'm going to create a gallery of images that may be used, but aren't currently. I'm not against rearrangements or additions of multiple-image templates, but I'm not sure where to add them. A lot are certainly useful, but theres only so much text

• 
  Field mount of FMNH 380 and Daspletosaurus
• 
  CMN 2869 (type)
• 
  CMN 2869
• 
  CMN 2869
• 
  CMN 2869
• 
  CMN 2869
• 
  CMN 351 (first "Stephanosaurus" skull, now clavinitialis referred)
• 
  CMN 351
• 
  CMN 351 (reversed)
• 
  CMN 351
• 
  FMNH 2479 skull
• 
  FMNH 2479 skull, FMNH 380 body
• 
  TMP 1982.38.1
• 
  AMNH 5353
• 
  AMNH 5373
• 
  CMN 8703 (clavinitialis type)
• 
  CMN 8703
• 
  CMN 8703
• 
  CMN 8705 (magnicristatus type)
• 
  CMN 8633 (cranibrevis type)
• 
  DPF Fauna
• 
  AMNH 5340

• Generally I think we should avoid showing the same specimens multiple times and instead show as many unique specimens as possible, as well as represent the different species included. While the article is image heavy already, I think some of this can be solved by grouping related images in multiple image templates. I think the forelimb images would work well in the postcranial skeleton section, and the skull diagram with annotations could work well juxtaposed with the photo of the same skull. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've gone and incorporated almost all the images here into the article where it makes sense. Thoughts? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I think one of those forelimb images could work to make more sense of the rather messy limb photo under Postcranial skeleton now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing remarks

This article now has two supports for it being complete, which seems like a reasonable point to get to for closing? Any additional copyedits or adjustments can totally be undertaken just as regular editing but there shouldn't be large issues to prevent this discussion from being archived now imo. Some final thoughts from me: if we manage to locate any sources that give etymologies for the species, they would be good to include. But these should be primary/secondary sources and not citing an english-to-greek dictionary which is too OR for us to use; a size comparison of Lambeosaurus amongst DPF fauna has been added, maybe a standalone of Lambeosaurus would be better and some images can be reshuffled. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

And some thoughts about the article workshop. As a single main editor on the article, I think this felt much more similar to a featured article review than previous collaborations, even Thescelosaurus, and I think that is a good thing because its what we are aiming for. Having only one person working on the page did mean that there were more available to provide reviews, but it also meant that I had to stay on top of article improvement throughout the entire ~month that this took. Both have good and bad aspects to them. I think something to be aware of is that because this is not a Featured Article Reassessment, the reviewers can also undergo some editing, as Jens and others have, which both helps with the time of review (copyedits can be performed directly) and lessens the load on the editor improving. If I had to leave partway through, it would probably fall on those who have time to review to push the article to the finish line and I think that is a benefit of this workshop over a regular assessment where reviewers can't really perform their own edits. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, good work indeed, and thanks for that! There is probably potential to further improve prose and flow, but even that should be good enough already. Let's wait some days in case there are additional comments, and then approve? (Maybe I manage a final quick go on the prose too).

Regarding the old FA initiative in general, I was thinking about asking at WP:FAR if the people there think it would be a good idea to run our FAs through the official Featured Article Review after we approved them here (perhaps starting with Thescelosaurus). External feedback can't hurt, especially concerning readability for non-experts, and the articles might get some additional polish. Also, it seems that only those old FAs that recently passed WP:FAR are being selected to re-run as WP:TFA, and that would really be an additional bonus making this effort more worthwile. (That doesn't mean that the respective main author should necessarily feel responsible to respond to queries there; we ideally should go there with a small team, provided that we get significant comments in the first place). Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm in support of that idea. It will certainly extend the duration of working through an article on here but for the FAs we are working on it is probably worthwhile to see what others feel. And the TFA re-running is probably fairly significant as a milestone to aim for. A group would definitely be better though an FAR could take months if it is slow. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I just asked. Maybe they will say it's outside the scope of WP:FAR, but let's see what suggestions they have. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just want to add I think this process is much better than sending old FAs straight to FAR, as some have suggested, because if we do that, we will have limited time for improvements, and there's a big chance of demotion. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath-water. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree I don't think FAR should be the first step along the article improvement. But maybe it makes sense for it to be the last step? We work on articles within-project first, and then send them to FAR once we are confident they will pass so they get an updated external review. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)