The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 [1].

Smilodon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smilodon is one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat. It may also have been the largest cat that ever lived. We have synthesised most information about the genus and its three species, and explained various controversies. The article is a GA and has been copy edited. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Relentlessly

Here's my copyedit. Other things:

  • The link in citation 34 (Coltrain et al.) is broken. A WebCite cache is available.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images are lacking alternative text.
  • It is perhaps the best known saber-toothed cat, and is commonly known as the saber-toothed tiger though it was not closely related to the tiger and other modern cats I don't see support for the "perhaps" in the article; It is one of the best known saber-toothed cats might be better.
I don't think "one of the best" does it justice really. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, but you need to support the text in the lead in the body. As far as I can tell you don't. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two separate issues here. One, Smilodon as the most popular saber-tooth, and then as the best-known by scientists, due to quality of its remains. In the latter category, it is now "only" one of the best known (Homotherium and Megantereon are also known from many, good remains). So we would have to get the original wording back, but add something about general popularity... To what extend? it is also a state fossil and stuff like that, not sure how important that is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added this[2], how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the word "restore" in a technical sense without ever explaining it. I know what it means, but it isn't obvious.
Would it help to say "artistically restored"? Paleoart could be linked earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did the above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the general practice is in biology articles, but could you explain what the Greek words in the etymology mean?
That are explained in the first three paragraphs of the taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You give the phrase, but not the individual words. (I've never heard σμίλη as a specifically double-edged knife, but never mind.) If what you have is the normal practice, fine. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't explain the individual words, so we'd have to source to dictionaries, which might be a bit ORish.. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is now considered an invalid nomen nudum, as it was not accompanied with a proper description, and no type specimens were designated This needs clarification. Is it a nomen nudum partly because no type specimens were designated? If so, you need to lose the comma. If not, the sentence should be restructured.
Yes, removed comma. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the diagram in Description. What's the meaning of the arrow?
Good catch, I think it might be a mistake, will ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • dire wolf kills What is one of those?
The article already states the dietary overlap between them and Smilodon. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Relentlessly (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Smilodon specimens have been excavated from asphalt seeps that once acted as natural carnivore traps, wherein animals were accidentally trapped and became bait for predators that came to scavenge, but were then trapped themselves. This is a confusing sentence and needs restructuring.
Split up and rewrote, better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this looks pretty good. Relentlessly (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to shrubland, but perhaps LittleJerry has other ideas... FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have read though and nothing else is jumping out as an obvious fix so I think we are over the line WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support and CE! FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The citation formatting needs some work. The samples listed below are just from the first half of the first column of citations (i.e. examples only). Ping me when this work is done, and I'll undertake a full article review. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence. Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specified, it was bot generated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, might do it once more pressing issues are dealt with (it is a bit time consuming, but not a requirement). FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the page numbers? Journal name was already there, but added pages. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata: finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be ScienceDaily, which is already listed (no author). It is probably just based on an AMNH press release... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WIAFA criteria 1a (prose) and 2 (MOS adherence). Although not knowledgeable about the topic–so can't make an educated opinion about 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched)–but the article answered all the questions I had about the topic. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will take a stab at these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I thought I would spot check your sources, but decided that you probably needed further general comments. So here is the only one I examined:

What is the missing statement? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"considered an invalid nomen nudum ("naked name"), as it was not accompanied with a proper description and no type specimens were designated." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is on page 2, under "historical review". FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, the article reads well but there are a few minor points:

Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very complex concept that would be almost impossible to explain in a sentence... Not even our article does it justice. How much explanation? The most concise wording I can think of is "animals with independently evolved similar morphological features, as a result of similar ecologies". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence contains several uncommon words (jargon) making it difficult to understand without clicking through to the linked words. You could omit "an ecomorph consisting of" without losing much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to remove information just because it may be hard to understand. People are here to learn new things, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but don't propose to make an issue out of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe upper arm is meant, but I'll let LittleJerry look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is likely the case. the extensor muscles are forearm muscles (between elbow and wrist). I linked forearm. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one, though I never heard that was a requirement before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it mentioned, and it looks more professional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then there would be at least some evidence of bone healing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could have simultaneously ruptured an artery. Having an unhealed skull fracture is not proof that that injury was the cause of death. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's what the source says, what would you suggest? I'd think "indicates" is rather cautious language? "Suggests"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made it even more cautious (seemingly fatal), how does it looks? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: any more? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Coming....

Using this version as a stable reference for footnote numbering...

More later.

@Casliber: Anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check - am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author is somewhat notable[3], he uses photomanipulation to create his images; the animals are changed so much as to be "original", but the backgrounds are sometimes iffy... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My only concern is that the source images used for the elephant, Smilodon might similarly be copyrighted, in which case this would be a derivative work I'm not sure he alone could freely release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photos have certainly been manipulated to a great extent. I made a question about a similar image some time ago: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages In the current case, the artist would have changed proportions and other features from the original photos... FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to be safe and remove the image. There are better reconstructions in the article, anyhow. Other than that, all the images are properly tagged and look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. DR as well? The author can also be contacted. I have replaced the image with a photo of hunting lions. Lions are mentioned in the adjacent text as a possible analogy, and I think the photo looks interesting juxtaposed with the painting. But other ideas are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be great to get that sorted out, yeah, that's just out of the purview of this FAC. The replacement image looks fine, and if that works with what you're going for that that's fine by me too :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More