Talk:Iguanodon/comments

message: *the first dinosaur recognized and the second dinosaur formally named. (that was very weird, so I simplified it for the time being)
**This is very confusing to me, and I have a pretty good understanding of basic taxonomic concepts.
*Together with Megalosaurus and Hylaeosaurus, it was one of the three originally used to define the new classification, Dinosauria.
**One of the three what?
*The genus continues to be analysed
**Could use a better formulation
*Scientific understanding of the dinosaur has evolved over the centuries as new information is discerned from the fossils.
**It's not a single dinosaur, it's a genus.
**"over centuries"
**new information is obtained: "discern" is ambiguous as it means btoh "distinguish" and "detect, find, perceive"
*and the question of social behavior.
**Why is it only scoail behavior that is a "question"? Drop the unnecessary word.
*one of the first well-known dinosaurs
**"famous"?
*its image changing significantly in response to new interpretations of its remains.
**Image is ambiguous again ("physical likeness" or "general or public perception"). "artistic [or whatever] representation" would be better.
:One clarification: my use of the "question of social behavior" is because that's the only one that can really not be seen from the bones. Professionals are very touchy about suggesting social behavior. J. Spencer 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The little that is in that section does not seem to warrant such an around-the-bush wording to me.Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: *Rename the section so you can drop the clunky notice. Maybe to "general description"?
*and massing about 3.08 tonnes (3.5 tons) on average. (changed the order)
**The subject of this "massing" is some specimen, while it should obviously be I. bernissartensis. (i.e. ""I. Berni[...] is estimated to have measured [...] and massed [...])
**"to mass"?? WP:JARGON, people! What's wrong with "to weight"??
*I. dawsoni is estimated at 8 metres (26.2 feet) long, [...] I. fittoni at 6 metres (19.7 feet) long.
**That second "long" is redundant.
*This genus had a large, vertically-deep skull, with a horny toothless beak and teeth like those of an iguana
**Why a hyphen to "vertically-deep" (and a jargon call to it.)
**"horny beak"? I didn't know the beak had horns... Or was it aroused?
*The brain was like that of the later hadrosaurids. (dropped; to make it useful would require eye-rolling detail)
**That sentence seems useless to me. But it's probably just me.
*with rather inflexible hands modified so that the three central fingers could bear weight.
**Modified compared to what?
*thumb spikes
**Jargon in aisle 3! Is it a spike acting as thumb or a thumb with a spike?
*It could have been used for defence
**"it" ? "thumb spikes"
*"supported and stiffened by ossified tendons (these rod-like bones are usually omitted from skeletal mounts and drawings)."
**Are these tendons or bones??
:It's a thumb that is a spike (one big conical pointy bone), and the ossified tendons are tendons that became bone during the individual's life. Weight versus mass? I dunno; I was taught it was more sciency to use "mass". J. Spencer 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that they are successively referred to as "tedons", then "bones." The later seems to refer to the fossil state, though. As a noun, "mass" is alright, but as a verb, it's ridiculous.Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I put a strike-through through those I addressed, but if you find the fixes insufficient, remove the lines and I'll look again. J. Spencer 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description

message: *This section's image is totally unrelated to the content. An actual three/threes illustrating the classification would be not inly more apporpriatre, but extremely helpful.
*Maybe specify that Iguanodontia is an unranked clade?
*In older sources, Iguanodontidae is shown
**was shown
*Traditionally, this family was somewhat of a wastebasket taxon
**Move traditionally after "was" for flow.
**Maybe use "has been"?
*In the intro, "hypsilodontids" was used, but here, it's "hypsilodonts"
*ornithopods that weren't hypsilophodonts or hadrosaurids.
**[...] that were neither [...]
*these animals are recognized to form a stepwise arrangment leading to the hadrosaurs.
**Jargon defcon level  raised to three!
**An image (as mentioned earlier) is probably necessary to help clear this up.
*Iguanodon ends up between Camptosaurus and Ouranosaurus, and is probably descended from a camptosaur-like animal. (would make more sense with a tree)
**It's not clear enough from the context this refers to a cladistic tree.
*but this has been rejected.
**"his proposal" or "his hypothesis"
:I'll see about getting a figure. I agree that "stepwise arrangement" is pretty nasty. J. Spencer 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be averse to a stick diagram, as are seen in a lot of dinosaur clade articles (Dromaeosauridae has a good-looking one)? J. Spencer 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would. Such diagram wreak havoc upon screen readers, amongst other problems. Besides, it would never pass FAC. aybe someone at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab will be willing to produce a quick graph? Circeus 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification and origins

message: *Consider moving the first 2-3 sentences of the second paragraph to the first, so that the second describes only the conservation problems.
*occurred in 1878 in a coal mine at Bernissart in Belgium, at a depth of 322 m (1056 ft), along with plant remains, fish, and other reptiles,
**Clunky phrase.
**It sounds like there were living fishes and reptiles, as opposed to remains
*oversaw excavation and reconstructedthe skeletons
**An improper coordination, what the Language Log folks term Anti FLoP coordination. The first part id missing an "of".
*11 are displayed as standing mounts, and 20 as they were (approximately) found.
**Are they still displayed today?
*Most of the remains were referred to the new species
**"[...]to a new species[...]"
*among the first complete dinosaur skeletons
**"some of the first complete [...]"
*a "condition" where
**AAAH! Run! Scare quotes!
*where pyrite, already in the bones, is altered to iron sulfate, and the bones are damaged
**Choppy. Let's try "where the pyrite already present in the bones is altered to iron sulfate and the bones are damaged"
**Are damaged how? Because the sulfate molecules are larger?
*to "treat" the "disease"
**Find a formulation that can be used without quotes
*and shellac, to simultaneously penetrate, kill, and harden.
**Wow! Coordination and punctuation problems!
***"penetrate" and "harden" have a different object from "kill". Neither is stated either.
***"Kill"? I think the medical treatment analogy went too far here.
***Drop the comma after "shellac"
*extending the period of damage.
**I would think it is a Bad Thing. Maybe "ligthening the damage by spreading it over a longer period," willl bve clearer on the intent.
*he had to "break" it
**Please use the proper word, or drop the quotes.
*as recent drilling operations show.
**"have shown"
:The "scare quotes" here were an inelegant compromise to get across that pyrite disease isn't really a disease; the 1880s prep crew mixed up a nasty solution on the presumption that what was happening could be treated like a disease, and their work did more harm than good.  Of course, they had no way of knowing it at the time. J. Spencer 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that much is clear, but the way to go is to simply NOT use the words "disease" or "condition" at all. Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the problem was not with the quotes around "pyrite disease" but around words like "condition" and "treat." Circeus 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernissart

message: *the initial work of the "Dinosaur Renaissance" that began with the description of Deinonychus in 1969
**"dinosaur renaissance" does not seem to be usually capitalized. It's an extremely jargonistic term restricted to the history of dinosaur studies (As far as a quick look up tells me), and should be given a quick definition.
*The last part about remnant protein is of unclear usefulness to the article, and unclear link to surrounding content. (tried to increase its sexiness)
:LOL at sexiness.Circeus 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To the present: Iguanodon worldwide

message: *has been referred to Camptosaurus.
**Better to use "reassigned" (or even simply "assigned") here. The mundane uses of "refer" cause confusion.
*I. major, a vertebra from the Isle of Wight described by Owen in 1842 as a species of Streptospondylus, is a nomen dubium which has been referred to I. anglicus.
**There is no statements as to who moved the species to Iguanodon.
*but it remains to be seen to what degree this will be accepted by paleontologists.
**Please reformulate or cite this phrase.
*I. exogyrarum
**Why is it a nomen dubium, exactly? Is it incomplete?
*Owen (1873 or 1874) referred it to Iguanodon, but this was soon overturned.
**Same for "referred" here.
**"[...] but he was soon overturned"
*I. seelyi (also spelled I. seeleyi), described by Hulke two years after I. prestwichii, was moved to I. bernissartensis.
**Was it renamed or synonymized with I. bernissartensis?
*and their disposal is not complete.
**What is meant by "disposal"?? "attribution"?
:Reassigned probably would work better. As for the acceptance of Mantellisaurus, because it was only named in 2006 there have been no formal challenges, but in paleontologist circles there has been a great deal of "harumph"-ing.  It might be better to just drop that line. "Disposal" was just me trying to vary the words I was using. J. Spencer 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "attribution" would definitely be my suggestion then.Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "referred" thing was my attempt to make the text seem a bit less monotonous by not using the word "reassigned" over and over again. Obviously, though, another word can be found which isn't quite as obscure as the scientific usage of the word "referred". Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassigned species

message: *The names are given in both a "Foo barii Author, year" and "Foo barii (Author, year)" format within a single paragraph 
*"I. mongoliensis" Whitfield, 1992 is a nomen nudum which has never been described, and may be an early name for Altirhinus.
**Scare quotes. Also please cite it.
*the possibly Aptian-age lower Cedar Mountain Formation of Utah, USA.
**Drop the "USA"
*in Départment du Pas-de-Calais
**We don't say "In the state of Montana;" drop "Département".
:For undescribed names, it is customary to use quotation marks so that others realize it's unofficial. J. Spencer 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an odd practice to me.Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so very much for your extensive comments, Circeus. On the topic of generic names which haven't yet been formally described, they appear in quotes. This is a widely used practice in paleontology. The rest of the scare quotes, however, can certainly be removed. Thank you again. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious species

message: *initially Iguanodon was portrayed
**"Iguanodon was initially portrayed"
*"life size" → "lifesize"
*"ill-health" → "illness" or "poor health"
*Then, with the discovery of the Bernissart skeletons, its bipedal nature was revealed.
**"Its bipedla nature was later revealed with the discovery of the Bernissart skeletons"
*The squeezing of text between images is not a very good layout practice.
*Putting the animal in a more horizontal makes many aspects of the arms and pectoral girdle more understandable.
**"more horinzontal" what?Posture. This was a late addition that didn't get a copyedit. Sorry.Firsfron of Ronchester 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On "such tracks are often attributed": that's paleo-shorthand for "we call it this, but there's no realistic way to prove it", and I'm not sure how to formulate that better. How would you prefer to see the body range defined?  In a couple of places, a list of countries is used, but I see now that they aren't collected all together anywhere. J. Spencer 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of 'bout "Despite the lack of factual evidence, these tracks are usually attributed to Iguanodon"? It's still correct (as far as I can tell), but you lose the weasel-ly look. Circeus 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used "direct" instead of "factual", as it's less harsh. J. Spencer 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Posture and movement

message: *Although it was originally placed on the animal's nose, by Mantell
**No comma
*allowed him to correctly place it on the hand
**is "him" Dollo or Owen?
*Love the comment about other misplaced thumbs.
*The typical interpretation of this thumb is as [...]
**"This thumb is typically interpreted as [...]"
**Maybe break paragraphs before that sentence? Striking these out as I go, only so I know where we're at. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thumb spike

message: *Drop the question mark Dropped it, but added the word "Possible" to the front, to avoid it seeming as if we were definitely declaring this as evidence of social behavior. Can be reworded if it's still inappropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social behavior?

message: *"life-sized" → "lifesize"
*"Changing images of Iguanodon" does not warrant a subsection of its own. The gallery should probably be refactored (so that the evolution can be seen throughout the article, and maybe only a vs. style images is shown in that section)
*"was only overturned beginning in the 1960s."
**Clunky phrase.
:::I've changed the wording here, in hopes that it is less clunky. I'm also striking out the stuff that appears to have been addressed. Please do not take offence; I'm just attempting to cross off the stuff that has been completed. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture