A fact from Cairanoolithus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Hi, I'll review this. Interesting, since this is the first ootaxon article I know of that has been nominated for GA, so it will potentially set a standard. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for reviewing! I'll address your points when I have time (probably tomorrow). By the way, this is actually the second ootaxon to be nominated for GA. The first was Gobioolithus if you want to take a look. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make the section order consistent with other promoted dinosaur articles?
Ok, not necessarily likie dinosaur articles, but I think some of the article structure is a bit puzzling, compared to zoology taxon articles in general. Why is distribution first? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of my sources actually give the etymology. It is pretty obvious, however, where the names came from (Cairanoolithus = "stone egg from Cairanne", dughii = "of Dughi", Dughioolithus = "Dughi's stone egg", roussetensis = "from Rousset"). Do you think it would count as translation and therefore not be OR if I included the etymologies? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the type oospecies, is known from the late Campanian of Southern France" Such info would make more sense outside the description section, under for example history and distribution.
Why are non-theropod dinosaurs in a clade with crocodylomorphs in the cladogram?
I have no idea; that's what Selles and Galobart's cladistic analysis came up with. They commented briefly on the fact that non-sauropod dinosaurs formed a clade in their results, but didn't discuss why crocodylomorphs appeared in the middle of the dinosaur tree. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All measurements need conversions ("1.10 mm to 2.65 mm thick", etc.)
According the the MoS, conversions are not required in scientific articles. I think that it would not be helpful to include conversions for the eggshell thickness because it would add extra fluff (making it harder to read), and people generally don't have an intuition for how small 0.043 inches is, even if inches come more naturally to them that metric units. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, it is always asked for in every animal FAC i've nominated. The MOS says " In science-related articles, however, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so." I wonder what "special reason" means. May have to ask on the MOS talk page... FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"i.e. its pores are long, narrow, and straight", "(meaning they have variable diameter across their length)". Not so important, but it is inconsistent whether you explain terms within a sentence or in parenthesis. Might look better if consistent.
"dinosauroid spherulitic basic type" Various terms that could be explained.
I did explain it, "a paraphyletic grouping including sauropod eggs and ornithischian eggs but excluding theropod eggs". Is more explanation necessary here? After all, this plays only a very minor role in the article as a whole. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the terms "dinosauroid" and "spherulitic". Most readers may not know what these terms mean (and there are no appropriate articles to link to). To less familiar readers, dinosauroid has a specific meaning... FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that that discussion is necessary on this page. I also consider the phrase "dinosauroid spherulitic basic type" to be one thing without splitting it into its component words. I hyphenated dinosauroid-spherulitic on the page to make this slightly more clear. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the question of why Cairanoolithus is not found in regions with a greater nodosaurid abundance." But are other eggs attributed to nodosaurs even known/even abundant anywhere? Otherwise it might seem like a moot point.
It means that Cairanoolithus or eggs similar to Cairanoolithus are not found in areas with greater nodosaurid abundance; to my knowledge Cairanoolithus is the only egg ever to be attributed to nodosaurs, and it causes this issue because at other formations (outside of the Campanian of Southwest Europe), nodosaurs are much more common, but no eggs like Cairanoolithus have been found elsewhere. If it is nodosaur eggs, then one would reasonably expect Cairanoolithus (or similar eggs) to be found in other areas where nodosaurs are known. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"likely that Cairanoolithus is a non-ornithopod" Belongs to?
Many dinosaur articles have a section about palaeoecoloy, which describes the relevant environment and other animals in it. Perhaps such info could be mentioned here, alongside the info under distribution?
There are two points left about explaining some terms (taphonimical, paraphyletic), just very briefly, in parenthesis or such. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: "Cairanoolithus eggs were first described as a distinct type by M. M. Penner" You shoud make it clear that it wasn't yet named, the reader will only clearly know when the name was coined by looking at the taxobox and intro... The history section seems to use the name "retroactively"...
