User talk:Jens Lallensack/Archive 1

Hi, I'm from the German Wikipedia. I like to use this Parasaurolophus picture for our Parasaurolophus article in the German Wikipedia (that is mostly a translation from the english one). I want to ask if I could upload it and the image description into the Wikimedia Commons? Thank you, --Jens Lallensack 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jens!

It looks to be in the public domain (U.S. government image). You don't need my permission to upload a public domain image, but you're welcome to upload it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron! I would like to update certain aspects in the Massospondylus article, if I'm allowed to. May I ask you to take a look for grammar and revert everything you are not happy about? Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jens,

You're absolutely welcome to do so! And I'd be glad to look over the grammar... I'm sure a few others are watching the article, too. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw this because I have Firsfron's talkpage watchlisted, nice work! Fun to see that eve a featured article can be expanded that much. And I don't think you have to worry about "blowing it up", Tyrannosaurus is twice as long. So if you have more to add, please do. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Ok, I will try, but I would have to add a "Posture and gait" section. If the changes are not as optimal, please dont hesistate to revert it or to tell me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all the changes (too late tonight), but what I've seen looks really good. Thanks for your work, Jens (and FM!) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jens,

Just wanted to say thank you for all your work on Carnotaurus. I haven't even actually gotten around to reviewing the edits on Massospondylus (but I hope to soon). I don't have a lot of access to the papers in question, but will try to go through the articles as best as possible. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Firsfron, I'm glad that I could help. I'm not ready with Carnotaurus yet, the expansion of the paleobiology section I'm currently working on is a bit tricky. Concerning Massospondylus Papers, no problem! Just wikimail me your e-mail-address. Best, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The article Carnotaurus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Carnotaurus for things which need to be addressed. Zad68 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jens, let me know when you're done working on Carnotaurus and I'll update the status of the GA items. I expect that on my next look-through, all the GA boxes will be checked, and then I'll get someone to help me look it over before passing. Zad68 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed your latest updates, there is one last tiny issue, a "However" you can just delete, and we're done. I'll ask for that experienced reviewer to check it. Zad68 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Carnotaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carnotaurus for comments about the article. Well done! Zad68 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jens! And thanks for all your work on this article. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jens, I've noticed some of your content contains "smart quotes" or apostrophes instead of straight quotes. Can you explain why? Thanks... Zad68 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that smart quotes are unwanted. Will not use them again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is right, smart quotes are not used, per WP:MOS. But my question really was--how did you get them into the article content in the first place? Zad68 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Which article do you mean? I do not know what your driving at. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(Let's keep this whole conversation here, I am watching your Talk page.) On Carnotaurus. Here is what I am driving at: I ran across your use of smart quotes in the article when I reviewed it. I am now worrying that you copied and pasted a word processor document into the article, which would explain the smart quotes. Most people who compose an article in the Wikipedia editor do not use smart quotes because they're very hard to enter--most people just use the straight quotes and apostrophes. I am worried that because the smart quotes indicate that the content may have been copied in from a word processor document that there are copyright issues. Can you comment on that? I just want to be sure... Zad68 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. I still can't find any sentence in that article containing smart quotes or apostrophes? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

that's because I took them out!  :) Just asking how they got in there... Zad68 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there should not be any apostrophs or smart quotes. I can't remember putting them in there manually (its not as complicated, though, since we have the new editor (go "special characters" -> "symbols")). I still can't find them, even in older versions. These are your changes. Have I missed something? Please help me with a diff or something like that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any smart quotes in the material (either the revised version or the version submitted to WP:GAN. I'm puzzled by the worry that any material was copied and pasted from anything; Jens is the author of German Wikipedia's article on Carnotaurus, which he built very slowly between March 7th and May 7th, 2012. Further, use of non-standard keys would almost be expected on a non-English keyboard. As Jens is obviously German, with a history of edits to the German Wikipedia since August 2005, your worry is misplaced. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK sorry folks, my concern is unfounded, just ignore me... Zad68 13:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jens, Our little collaboration paid off. Vulcanodon is now a G article. Nice work. If you ever have another collaboration you want done post a message on my talk page and I'll see how I can help. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a userbox for you:

Reid,iain james (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Reid,iain :) I'm glad that our collaboration worked so well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Any other pages you want a collaboration on? Reid,iain james (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there are any specific userboxes you want see here and they can be made specially for you. Reid,iain james (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work for making the Milky Way a good article. You have done a great job. Megahmad (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I replied to your request at the Map workshop. (and congratulations on the GA...) Begoon ^talk 12:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jens, I thank you for taking up the review. Could you give me the information from Gluts encyclopedia and the first reference you noted on the GA review page? There is one question I have to ask, why did you quickfail it? I have fixed most of the comments accept for the ones involving the references. Thanks anyway. Iainstein (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reid,iain james, please send me a wikimail with your mail address, I will send you the sources then. I will help getting the article in good shape as time allows. So, why I have quickfailed it … I have only mentioned the most important points in the review. Most serious, a lot of the citations are fake. Reviewers feel be taken on a ride when being confronted with an article like this. Better no sources than faked ones. The article is full with this, here is another one: Cetiosauriscus was a relatively small quadrupedal herbivorous sauropod. It is estimated that Cetiosauriscus stood six meters high and was fifteen meters in length, weighing about nine tonnes.[1] I have read the source (Charig 1993), this information is not given in this source.

According to Good article criteria, a good article has to be 1) well written, 2) verifiable, 3) Broad in its coverage, 4) neutral, 5) stable and 6) illustrated. No problem with points 4 to 6. But the article is not well written, as for example Cetiosauriscus is diagnosed by axially concave summits on the cranial and middle caudal neural spines. is a copy and paste from "The Dinosauria 2004". This is very serious, the "GA criteria" states that "If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review". Also, it is not verifiable because of all the faked sources. It is not broad in its coverage as I pointed out in the review. The section "Description", for example, is very weak. Important information is missing (e.g., from which formation do the fossils come from?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating your points. How do you wikimail? Iainstein (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to chime in, it is very hard to get an article up and running that hasn't mainly been written by oneself, and near impossible if one hasn't checked all the sources used for factuality. I'd suggest writing articles from scratch in the future, or work on taxa with little text in their articles to begin with. For example, though it looks pretty good on the surface, I've pretty much given up on Rodrigues Starling for now, because there is too much stuff I can't verify, and too much stuff that may be from sources that have nothing to do with the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Reid,iain james, I have just uploaded the sources, see ([1]). (you would have to click on "toolbox" -> "Email this user" for wikimail). My words above may have been to hard, please note that I meant no offence but only wanted to explain why this article does not meat the GA criteria. FunkMonk is absolutely right, and besides, this genus is difficult to write about because there is no comprehensive modern revision. We have to fetch information from both newer and very old sources while being very careful with the latter. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jens. Could you go through the article now that I have comprehended the comments. I am not sure what to add from "Gluts Encyclopedia" or what I got from "The Relationships of Cetiosauriscus stewarti (Dinosauria; Sauropoda): implications for sauropod phylogeny". Iainstein (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hope I will have time this weekend. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You did some great work getting Carnotaurus to GA, have you considered getting it to featured article status? From what I can see, it's pretty close. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! Yes, I definitely had planned to submit it as a FAC. In my opinion it is complete. While it is short, there aren't any more points to add, so its coverage is as broad as it could be. To expand it we would have to into greater detail, but I think this way it is more reader friendly. I'm not sure if the language and prose is sufficient, though, I have not the abilities to evaluate and improve that. And I still think about removing the whole "In popular culture" section. The problem is, there are not enough sources to cover that topic completely. I fear that some of the books used in this section are self-published ones, but I was not able to find that information in any other sources. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you could remove the pop section entirely. And I don't think it would be a problem to add more technical stuff to it, for example in the two last dinosaur articles I worked on, we just crammed as much into them as we could. I'll read through the Carnotaurus article and see if I find some problems. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I will do my best fixing all the issues if may find. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to voice my support for taking this to FAC! It was the first GA review I had ever done and so I have special feelings for it. Please do let me know if it goes, I'd love to help support. Zad68 15:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I'll put a few thoughts down here as I go along, kind of like a second GA review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Does the intro really need a source for a very uncontroversial statement?

fixed

• Maybe "exceptionally well preserved" is a tad too hyperbolic? Well preserved would be enough.

fixed

• "As a theropod, Carnotaurus was highly specialized and distinctive. Besides having thick horns above the eyes, a feature unseen in all other carnivorous dinosaurs, a very deep skull sitting on a muscular neck characterized Carnotaurus as did small and possibly functionless forelimbs, and long and slender hindlimbs." Maybe when it was first discovered, but these features are now known to be common to all abelisaurs.

well … most of these features are not autapomorphies. But the skull was shorter, the neck more muscular, and the forelimbs shorter than in any other abelisaurid. While Majungasaurus had very short hind limbs, some other abelisaurs such as Aucasaurus may also had had long hindlimbs.

• "Skin impressions that were preserved with the single skeleton" We already know there is a single skeleton, so it redundant to mention it more than once.

fixed

• "rather than being covered by feathers." Do any of the sources even mention feathers specifically?

yes, you can find a citation in the "skin" section.

• "nasal bones were sculptured" Seems a bit weird for something natural.

This is the official technical term. It is also used to describe the rough skull surface of crocodiles and temnospondyles, and is even used to describe molluscs (Sculpture (mollusc)).

• "today's emus and kiwis, which also have functionless forelimbs" Both have claws on the wings, and I've read the latter can use them to scratch themselves, so I'm not sure if they're entirely functionless? FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The source says: The part of the spinal cord that supplies innervation to the forelimb is reduced to the degree seen in emus and kiwis (quantified in Giffin, 1995), which have vestigial forelimbs that are not used even for display and hang uselessly at their sides (Davies, 2002). It is based on Davies, S.J.J.F. (2002). Ratites and tinamous. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shall we write "almost functionless" instead?

• "Originally, the right side of the skull was also covered with several fragments of skin – this was not recognized when the skull was prepared, and these fragments were accidentally destroyed." How was it known, then?

I do not now exactly, the sources are a bit vague. I think they have found small pieces of skin after the preparation that were to small to reveal any information.

• "Scalation was similar in different body parts with the exception of the head, which apparently showed a different, irregular pattern of scales." How is this known, if the part about descruction is correct?

fixed, I added another sentence.

• "Uniquely for theropods, there were large knob-like bumps running along the sides of neck, back and tail in irregular rows." Didn't Ceratosaurus have something similar?

No, in Ceratosaurus these are osteoderms (bones, not scales).

• "and are only 72 to 69.9 million years old" "Only" is so relative here that it doesn't make sense.

fixed

• "Carnotaurus is the only known carnivorous dinosaur with a pair of horns on the frontal bone." Perhaps mention (if stated in source) that horns are known in other theropods, just mainly placed on the lacrymal?

I think those lacrymal horns are different because they are not directed laterodorsally as in Carnotaurus. I have modified the sentence a bit though.

• "Analysis of the jaw design of Carnotaurus" Again, weird word for a natural object.

Well, you will be shocked: [2]. I do not know a better word that is as precise.

Thanks for all those comments! I hope I have sufficiently resolved or answered all of them. Anything else? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking good! If you write "almost functionless" or something like that for the arms, that would be nice. Source wise, there should be consistency on whether you write full first names, or only initial. And if anything can be expanded and elaborated, that wouldn't hurt! The intro could be expanded a bit, it should summarise the entire article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead a bit, and added a few things I intentionally had left out before because I don't wanted to make things overly complicated. However, now I think its much better to have these things included :) I don't have any more ideas what to add; shall we submit it now? Could you please check the recent additions for grammar? Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not much of a word smith myself, so maybe we could ask someone for a copyedit? And you should still make the citation style consistent, either have all first names, or only initials, not a mix. But yeah, I think it's ready then! FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation style is fixed now (I hope). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ready for action! By the way, I think the term vestigial should be mentioned and linked in relation to the arms. "Functionless" and other words of that sort don't really do it justice. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally it is submitted! Sorry for the delay, the past weeks I hadn't had any time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice! But remember, these day the process can take months... FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seems the FAC is going very well, hope it'll encourage you to take on more FAs! I'm sadly too busy to do so myself at the moment, but I'm happy to help out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I still have to translate some more stuff I have once written for the German Wikipedia. We may even get Opisthocoelicauda to this level, I hope I will have time soon to work on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I see there's no life restoration for that one. Coincidentally, I am currently working on a dinosaur design project for school, and I will have to draw a lot of titanosaurs and other animals in different styles to find out how I'm going to execute the project. So some of these "experiments" I'll donate to Wikipedia. So if you have some wishes for how I should draw Opisthocoelicaudia for the article, both pose and style wise, feel free to suggest here, then I'll give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that would be absolutely great if you would draw a life reconstruction! Please see here ([3], Fig. 6 in the paper) for the most recent published skeletal reconstruction. And good luck with your project, that sounds interesting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper! What do you think the skull should be based on? Gregory S. Paul speculated the skull of Nemegtosaurus may belong to it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There are only very few titanosaur skulls known. Opisthocoelicaudia may be closely related to Alamosaurus, but no skull is known for this genus. I would definitely use the Nemegtosaurus skull. This is a problem with the Opisthocoelicaudia article: One new fossil discovery showing that the Nemegtosaurus skull belongs to the Opisthocoelicaudia postcranium, and we have to rename the article because the name Nemegtosaurus has priority. Would be a shame since the name Opisthocoelicaudia is way cooler. This has not happen since O. was described in 1977, but still … at least we would not have to redraw the life reconstruction ;) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Any colour scheme or pose you would prefer? FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No preferences :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to comment, right now O. is considered to be an antarctosaurid, and I think at least 1 antarctosaurid (maybe Isisaurus) is known from skull material. That might be a good thing to note when you make the illustration. Iainstein (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Antarctosauridae is a taxon considered valid only by very few people. Just do a Google Scholar search after "Antarctosauridae" and see how many papers it findes containing this word (only two!). Nevertheless, when a paper has suggested Opisthocoelicaudia to be an antarctosaurid we may should add this info to the article; do you remember which paper? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with the paper is, it doesn't actually say "Antarctosauridae". As defined, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036907 has Opisthocoelicaudia placed in Antarctosauridae. Fig. 1 is a cladogram, one of which I added to Ampelosaurus, and places O. in a clade with Isisaurus, Antarctosaurus, Argentinosaurus, and Alamosaurus. Holtz's appendix also places O. in antarctosauridae, but does not really give any information about it. Iainstein (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This phylogeny is based on Curry Rogers 2005, and she named this node Opisthocoelicaudiinae (Alamosaurus + Isisaurus + Opisthocoelicaudia). No skull material is known for Isisaurus as far as I know, and the position of Antarctosaurus itself (the only one known from skull bones) is very unsure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Added a sketch: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#Opisthocoelicaudia FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Is this free image[4] perhaps of the holotype? It is unlabelled, but I uploaded it here.[5] It is on a weird travelling exhibit that never seems to end, which makes many important specimens unavailable for study. I saw some of it in 1998. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jens, I realized that Ampelosaurus has many spaces with few or no images. Would it be possible for you to upload your images, except for the models, so I can add them to the article? Thanks in advance. Iainstein (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on your FA for Carnotaurus! I'm happy to have helped it along and hope to see more great Dino FAs in the future! :) Zad68 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		In addition to the work on Carnotaurus, you deserve a dino-specific star for all the work you've done on many other hitherto neglected dinosaur articles! FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This one looks cool :) Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, would you be able to review Kentrosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi LittleJerry, I wish I could, but unfortunately I have absolutely no time at all … I will not be able to do anything in Wikipedia until mid august. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, some rather interesting bits you're adding to Ankylosaurus, left me wondering about that Glut book. Does it generally go into detail about popular depictions of various dinosaurs? FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! Yes, it often contains some interesting details about popular depictions. It is also quite helpful to find additional (older) sources. For example, it says that this article here (http://rmg.geoscienceworld.org/content/20/2/123.short) contains information on teeth referred to "baby" Ankylosaurus magniventris, with implications on feeding. Would be worth to add that; I will do a resource request. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, responded per email. Also wondering what those baby teeth are, and why they're not mentioned in the 2004 Carpenter paper...FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amargasaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Amargasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amargasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award.LavaBaron (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi LavaBaron, thank you so much for the award, I'm very happy about it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to review Apatosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to do this days ago, but I'm currently short on time. I should be able to finish a review the next few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to expand Heterodontosaurus, but just saw that you had taken the German version to FAC. So I was wondering whether you would collaborate on it? In any case, I think I'll draw a new restoration of it which will probably benefit from your comments... FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, yes, that would certainly be the most efficient. What is your plan? Shall I translate parts of the German article? Looking forward to your new drawing! Have to read your new Baryonyx article few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was originally going to write it all from scratch, but if there are any sections you would like to translate, it would of course be very helpful! Usually when I've collaborated with someone, we divided sections between us. Anything you'd like to write in particular? I usually find history and classification interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is ok, I could do the "description" part, for a start. And perhaps parts of the paleobiology, some of that stuff took me quite some time, I remember. Lets see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! And there's no rush. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, this has a paper on Carnotaurus on page 11 not yet cited in the article you wrote: http://www.cimne.com/iacm/News/Expressions%2026.pdf It was just mentioned on the Dinosaur Mailing List. FunkMonk (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Heterodontosaurus page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Heterodontosaurus page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Heterodontosaurus page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thank you very much, 7&6=thirteen! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you For taking up the GA review of Bluebuck. I and FunkMonk were sure no one would pick it up for months, as we two are the main reviewers at Biology GAN and neither could take this up. In fact we were preparing to hibernate :P But you came as the savior! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA! I got to see a skeleton cast of this in person recently; it's an interesting critter. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, good work, we want more! FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Carnotaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Carnotaurus is now going to be featured on the main page on 22 April; had to do a last minute reschedule and as a result this has moved up. The new link for the main page text is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 22, 2017. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Carnotaurus and other 'saurs

Thank you for quality articles such as Carnotaurus, Amargasaurus, Opisthocoelicaudia and Heterodontosaurus, open to collaboration, for FA and GA reviewing, for clear edit summaries, for your modest user page, - Jens, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Gerda Arendt, thank you so much!! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1641 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your share to Heterodontosaurus, "a small dinosaur which became quite important to the study of dinosaur evolution upon its discovery. It is notable for its eponymous teeth and primitive features, and for being the basis of a family of dinosaurs."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Today, thank you for your share of Brachiosaurus, "one of the most iconic dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

... and today, Ceratosaurus, a "large meat-eater with nose horn"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Trachodon mummy, "one of the most important dinosaur specimens ever found, had profound impact on the understanding of dinosaurs. The Trachodon mummy is one of a handfull of "dinosaur mummies", and is interpreted as the fossil of a natural mummy. The article combines history with cutting edge scientific research, and therefore is hopefully of interest for a broader audience."! - Yes, of interest ;) - I have a PR open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Today, thank you for you work on Spinophorosaurus, "a long-necked dinosaur which is notable for bearing spikes on its tail, and in being one of the most completely known members of its group from its time and place. We have summarised all available sources, including a German book about the expeditions that found the fossils, and the article therefore has a detailed and rather dramatic account of the discovery"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Opisthocoelicaudia, about "an interesting long-necked dinosaur from Mongolia, and a recent effort of the WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

... and today for your share to Limusaurus, introduced: "This little dinosaur may seem inconspicuous, but there are many interesting aspects to it. All known specimens were found stuck in what appears to have been mud pits formed by the footprints of giant dinosaurs (which gave it its name). while it had teeth when juvenile, these were entirely lost as it grew up, a feature only known from a few other animals. Adults appear to have been herbivorous, though it belonged in a group of otherwise carnivorous dinosaurs. In addition, its unusual hands were also thought to have implications for bird evolution, but this idea has fallen out of favour."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

... and today for Argentinosaurus, introduced last year: "The possibly largest known dinosaur. Argentinosaurus was described in 1993 by the important paleontologist José Bonaparte, who sadly passed away this week."! My first FA ever, invited generously by Brianboulton and Tim riley, Messiah (Handel), was first performed OTD in 1942, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Your FA looks impressive, though I have no idea at all about the topic (and therefore probably should read it). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead ;) - The main article was mostly the work of the others, my contribution being pruning and correcting the myth that Bach composed the melody of Wachet auf (wake up). The article had too little about structure and music, so I wrote 4 supporting articles, He was despised. All this was in 2012. More recent production: Wie schön (how beautiful) based on the other hymn by Nicolai. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for your share to Podokesaurus, "about the first dinosaur discovered and named by a woman (Mignon Talbot in 1911), and also one of the first well-known small theropods discovered, which attracted international scientific interest at the time. Unfortunately, the only known specimen was destroyed by a fire, so it has become fairly obscure over time. All that will probably ever be known about the dinosaur is summarised here, so hopefully it can bring some attention to its historical importance."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I really didn't do much for this article :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Achelousaurus Artikel!--MWAK (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gern geschehen :-) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jens, there's currently a restoration of Carnotaurus on review[6], so since you wrote the article, I was thinking you probably have some input? It could maybe go in instead of the old restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Amargasaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 22, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a "spectacular dinosaur from Argentina"! (late sign:) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Besten Dank! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jens! A kind ping: I've addressed your FAC comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Winter_War/archive2, thx again for reviewing! Manelolo (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ceratosaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Ceratosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ceratosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Heterodontosaurus has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The GA Reviewer's Barnstar

Thank you for your work on evaluating articles that have been proposed for Good Article status. Many times, reviewers don't get noticed for their work. Reviewing an article and working with other editors to improve content takes effort. In addition, a commitment to put aside a block of time for the review is also needed to finish the process. I don't think most other editors realize what a service you are doing to improve the quality of content. What you do provides an incentive for the continuing improvement of content. You’ve put in the time and effort to improve content and therefore deserve recognition and appreciation.
The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Barbara! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I responded to your review over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleopatra/archive1. Thanks for initiating a review of the article! I hope that I can address all of your concerns where they may arise. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still reading through the rest of the article, but so far there isn't really something to complain about! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you for writing the article, Jens! Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:Axl! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it.Amirk94391 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but actors are absolutely not my field (I barely know any of them by name). I wish you success though! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)hi jens thanks for review of agriculture. am away for a few days with unsuitable de ice will reply as soon S I an Chiswick chap

Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article! I've done now more than a dozen nominations and your detailed suggestions touched on the entire article. Persons willing to go that extra mile to do a review as you did are a rare breed here and I thank you.--MONGO (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations for the FA; I am very glad too hear that, good to know that I was able to help! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, at the risk of sounding like I am pestering I think I've addressed the last concerns you mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubinas/archive1, including adding some more general information as well as the stage I and stage II distinctions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A rather grueling FAC, but finally made it to FA. Thanks for your feedback and support! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jens. Just to say thank you for taking on that GAN. I know it took a while, but it was good to have another pair of eyes looking through the article. A appreciate your effort on it. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Midnightblueowl, this is kind of you, and I am glad that I could be of help. It is a huge article, but excellently written throughout, and therefore a pleasure to read. Thanks for this immensely important contribution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw your wonderful work on the Stalin article and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to review the article for Elton John when I nominate it for GA in the near future.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks! Elton John is not precisely within my sphere of interest and not my taste of music, so I think that others might have more fun reviewing it. But please just nominate it; I will keep an eye on it, and if nobody takes the review, I will be thinking about it again! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Glossary of dinosaur anatomy.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Great work!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Ceratosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 8, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I have addressed the concerns at the GAC. Any further review is also welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Passed it; congrats for the GA! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cas. Looks awesome! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jens, thanks again for your helpful comments in reviewing the Paleoart article for GA status. I've just now completed all of your suggestions on the article to the best of my ability, though there is a small handful of items I'm unsure of. For these, I've commented in response to your suggestions with some questions, mainly about sources. https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Paleoart/GA1#GA_Review Thanks for your help! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but I am wondering if you might have time to get to this soon—I have upcoming real life obligations in a few days that might delay the process if there are further major revisions that need to be made. I was hoping to finish the review before then. Thanks for your time! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks for the comprehensive improvements, I think the article made a big step forwards. I left two more points, but promoted now anyways, as the criteria are more than fulfilled. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, do you have the name of the formation of that specimen? Would be good to add to the articles and also to that formation, or a new entry on the to-do list. I have been working on the Neuquén Basin, cleaning up the existing formations first, before starting the work on the Mendoza Group. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Added it: Itapecurú Formation. Never heard of that one though. If you want to put it on your to-do list, that would be wonderful. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that means the formation was misspelled, which happens often with Spanish and Portuguese names, especially of indigenous origin, like this one, but it is misspelled in the book then. We have the Itapecuru Formation, and the name derives from Itapecuru Mirim. See pt-wiki, it is not with an accent in this case. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, corrected! Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop a personal note of appreciation for your review of this article. It can be a bit hit and miss with reviewers and this was definitely a hit. Especially considering the controversial nature of the topic. Thanks to you it has improved in ways that it wouldn't have with just me and the regular editors. Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm very happy about how the review went and how thoroughly everything was addressed, thank you very much for all the good work on this important article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On 4 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bajadasaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bajadasaurus had elongated neural spines on its neck, thought to have been used to deter predators? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bajadasaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bajadasaurus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bajadasaurus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The article Bajadasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bajadasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jens, thank you so much for very kindly and promptly reviewing my GA nomination for Bernard Gui. Just a heads up to let you know that I've made all of the recommended changes. Thanks again! --Etiennedebourbon (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

On 13 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spinophorosaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Spinophorosaurus had spikes on its tail, unlike most other sauropod dinosaurs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spinophorosaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spinophorosaurus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the work you do reviewing articles for GA as well as significantly expanding and improving articles yourself. I'm particularly impressed by your work on Brachiosaurus! SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SkyGazer 512! Although for Brachiosaurus I can only take part of the credit, it was an very successful collaborative effort of our wiki project where a number of people made significant contributions. Thanks again, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I know that I have appeared out of nowhere on the BRG-34 GA review. I want to state here that my background (parts on my User page) includes a doctorate in nutritional biochemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and until recently retired, 14 years as an expert science consultant to U.S. companies in the dietary supplement industry. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, noting here that I posted something for you on the Talk:African humid period/GA1 page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for the delay, will continue as soon as possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the huge amount of reviewing you do. It seems that I can hardly look at a FA without discovering that you did a review for it. Long may it continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this, Gog! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any issues still outstanding? David notMD (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sorry for the delay, real life got me occupied. I passed it now! Thank you for your contributions to this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your contributions to GA are highly appreciated. P.S. I added the GA button to the top of the article page. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Usually there is no need to add the GA button manually; a bot will do that after a while. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

April 2019—Issue 001

Tree of Life

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Sturgeon nominated by Atsme, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber, reviewed by Opabinia regalis Cactus wren nominated by CaptainEek, reviewed by Sainsf Bidni nominated by PolluxWorld, reviewed by DepressedPer Crinoid nominated by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated FAs

Cretoxyrhina nominated by Macrophyseter Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber

WikiCup heating up

Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.

Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming

A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.

Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trachodon mummy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The article Trachodon mummy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trachodon mummy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

this is good enough? --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that would be a great addition to the article! If you want to improve it further, you could crop it more tightly (the thumb views in Wikipedia are tiny enough already); also the text is not really needed when used in the article (we have the figure captions for this, which are better readable and more accessible; removing the text would allow you to crop it even more). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah i will just keep to text however unless its extremely harmful. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019—Issue 002

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Cretoxyrhina by Macrophyseter Bramble Cay melomys by The lorax/Vanamonde93, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Chimpanzee by LittleJerry/Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Tim riley Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Enwebb Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Gog the Mild Megabat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated FAs

Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack

Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs

Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.

1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?

• Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
• FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.

2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?

• JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
• FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.

3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?

• JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
• FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.

4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?

• FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
• JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.

5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?

• FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
• JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
  • Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.

6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?

• FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
• JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.

Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019—Issue 003

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Masked booby by Casliber and Aa77zz, reviewed by Jens Lallensack Rook (bird) by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn Vernonopterus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus Campylocephalus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus Unionopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Ashorocetus Big Cat, Little Cat by Barkeep49, reviewed by J Milburn Félicette by Kees08, reviewed by Nova Crystallis

Newly nominated content

Masked booby by Casliber Adelophthalmidae Plains zebra by LittleJerry Letter-winged kite by Casliber

Relative WikiWork

Project name	Relative WikiWork
Cats	4.79
Fisheries and fishing	4.9
Dogs	4.91
Viruses	4.91
ToL	4.94
Cetaceans	4.97
Primates	4.98
Sharks	5.04
All wikiprojects average	5.05
Dinosaurs	5.12
Equine	5.15
Bats	5.25
Mammals	5.32
Aquarium fishes	5.35
Hypericaceae	5.38
Turtles	5.4
Birds	5.46
Australian biota	5.5
Marine life	5.54
Animals	5.56
Paleontology	5.57
Rodents	5.58
Amphibians and Reptiles	5.64
Fungi	5.65
Bivalves	5.66
Plants	5.67
Algae	5.68
Arthropods	5.69
Hymenoptera	5.72
Microbiology	5.72
Cephalopods	5.74
Fishes	5.76
Ants	5.79
Gastropods	5.8
Spiders	5.86
Insects	5.9
Beetles	5.98
Lepidoptera	5.98

Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs

Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.

Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa

We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.

1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?

• Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.

2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?

• Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.

My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.

3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?

• Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.

4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?

• Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.

5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?

• Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.

June DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jens Lallensack. You have new messages at Talk:Coterel gang/GA1.
Message added 17:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No worries, I forgot about it for a week! :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:TOLN

July 2019—Issue 004

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.