![]() | Deinocheirus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2016. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
None of these images have the appropriate copyright status -- they may have to be removed. John.Conway 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The footnotes are a bit messed up. This needs the attention of somebody with technical expertise on footnotes. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz ( talk • contribs) Not "unsigned" at all. It was properly signed. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible that Deinocheirius is a dryptosaur? Like Appalachiosaurus and Dryptosaurus. I haven't seen a good picture of the original bones, but I have seen a model skeleton of a dryptosaur, and the arms are really long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Major theories:
Any suggestions? -- Sneaky Oviraptor18 talk edits tribute 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, as much as I love Lambert, I have to say that I'm with Paul on this one. 69.138.110.253 ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 69.138.110.253 ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it look more like Therizinosaur than ornithomimosaurian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella7790 ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What about a giant compsognathid like sinocalliopteryx ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it still valid or is it within ornothimimidae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Though they are not scientifically published, this should be enough for here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131104-dinosaur-hands-arms-body-mongolia/ I will edit the restoration once skeletals are released. FunkMonk ( talk) 07:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly not a lambeosaurine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That is most certainly true, but what does this have to do with Deinocheirus?-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't seem to find anything in the article that suggests a hump. Someone mind adding a brief blab with citation? Because I know the hump is present. Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that "both forelimbs excluding the right claws" were found in the holotype specimen, but the photos make it look like the *left* claws are missing. Is that right? Oconnor663 ( talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29729412
The article coining Deinocheirus (and Deinocheiridae) is marked as having been published in 1969 both on its own pages and on the journal website. However, the publication is currently marked here (and on many other websites) as 1970. What is the case? Albertonykus ( talk) 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Deinocheirus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "holtz2004":
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)Reference named "hurumsabath2003":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
IJReid, since this talk page is so short, we can probably talk about FAC stuff here anyway, and everyone is of course welcome to chime in. First iffy thing I noticed (apart from all the obviously outdated stuff, which means everything has to be rewritten) is that some sections, mainly description, go too much into issues that should be relegated to the history section. Stuff about how and when something was discovered does not belong there, description should simply be a description of the animal. I think I'll write what I can find about the skull, just to set the tone. Then there's the issue of taxobox image. I personally like the current one, since it's the holotype, which gave it its name, but the hands seem to be mounted inaccurately. Some mounted casts look better in that regard, but the photos just don't look so good. Also, thanks to Dinoguy2 for the updated size comparison! FunkMonk ( talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have a whole, long paragraph about the history of attempts to estimate the size under Description? Surely this belongs in the History section, because all those previous efforts and estimates were rendered moot by the discovery of complete specimens. It may be interesting as a historical curiosity to see the kinds of numbers people got when we only had the arms to go on, but that's about the only relevance these obsolete studies have. Same for the stuff about previous speculation on diet before the skull was known. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I contend that the 6.358 tonne mass estimate from the Lee et al. paper represents false precision, and that according to normal practice in science, as well as the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, the value ought to be rounded to 6.4 tonnes. That represents a difference of about 0.7%. Fluctuations in weight of individual humans, as well as larger animals like elephants (a male African bush elephant weighs around 5.5 tonnes, similar to Deinocheirus), can easily exceed 1% on a daily basis, so reporting a mass estimate to 4 significant figures does't make sense. Lee et al. cite Benson et al. as the source of the estimate. But Benson et al. just have bone measurements in their supplementary material, "Dataset S1". Evidently the mass estimate came from those measurements and an equation.
Benson et al. give a series of mass estimates for other dinosaurs in Table 1; all of these are given to 2 significant figures, and when they talk about error in mass estimates they cite Campione & Evans. Campione & Evans discuss mass estimate accuracies extensively and talk about a "25% mean prediction error" for estimates from bone measurements; this is incorporated into their Table 6. For example, their Brachiosaurus mass estimate of 35780 kg, corresponds to a range of 26840-44730 kg. Unless we provide an uncertainty range for the Deinocheirus estimate, using 4 significant digits is very misleading. WolfmanSF ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a new skeletal, made by bricksmashtv and posted on deviantart as CC-BY 3.0 (license is in bottom of right sidebar). I think this should be cropped and placed in the article, but I think this should be done by FunkMonk, as it was mostly you arranging the images. Most other new skeletals by bricksmash are also CC-BY 3.0, such as one of Chuandongocoelurus I already uploaded. IJReid discuss 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I understand the source might not be believable and I considered long enough whether I actually need to include this estimate, but I did because unlike some other estimations by the book (e.g. size based on braincase or illium which admittedly is unreliable), this was at least based on complete specimens. But what do you mean by messy? I've seen this type of writing in other articles (namely Dakoratpor and some other articles). Yes I thought about putting it as a separate sentence, but if I include this estimate as a separate sentence, the article looks messier (in my opinion) because the 2020 paper doesn't show a higher estimation in this case. Then would it be better to not use it at all? Junsik1223 ( talk) 03:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This hatnote has been added to the page several times in the last few months, then removed soon after as "unnecessary". I'd think such a hatnote would be very useful - Deinonychus and Deinocheirus have very similar-looking names, and as far as I can tell they're the only two true dinosaurs starting with "Deino", so non-experts could easily mix them up. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) ( talk) 08:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Deinocheirus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2016. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
None of these images have the appropriate copyright status -- they may have to be removed. John.Conway 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The footnotes are a bit messed up. This needs the attention of somebody with technical expertise on footnotes. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz ( talk • contribs) Not "unsigned" at all. It was properly signed. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible that Deinocheirius is a dryptosaur? Like Appalachiosaurus and Dryptosaurus. I haven't seen a good picture of the original bones, but I have seen a model skeleton of a dryptosaur, and the arms are really long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Major theories:
Any suggestions? -- Sneaky Oviraptor18 talk edits tribute 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, as much as I love Lambert, I have to say that I'm with Paul on this one. 69.138.110.253 ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 69.138.110.253 ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it look more like Therizinosaur than ornithomimosaurian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella7790 ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What about a giant compsognathid like sinocalliopteryx ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it still valid or is it within ornothimimidae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Though they are not scientifically published, this should be enough for here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131104-dinosaur-hands-arms-body-mongolia/ I will edit the restoration once skeletals are released. FunkMonk ( talk) 07:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly not a lambeosaurine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That is most certainly true, but what does this have to do with Deinocheirus?-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't seem to find anything in the article that suggests a hump. Someone mind adding a brief blab with citation? Because I know the hump is present. Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that "both forelimbs excluding the right claws" were found in the holotype specimen, but the photos make it look like the *left* claws are missing. Is that right? Oconnor663 ( talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29729412
The article coining Deinocheirus (and Deinocheiridae) is marked as having been published in 1969 both on its own pages and on the journal website. However, the publication is currently marked here (and on many other websites) as 1970. What is the case? Albertonykus ( talk) 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Deinocheirus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "holtz2004":
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)Reference named "hurumsabath2003":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
IJReid, since this talk page is so short, we can probably talk about FAC stuff here anyway, and everyone is of course welcome to chime in. First iffy thing I noticed (apart from all the obviously outdated stuff, which means everything has to be rewritten) is that some sections, mainly description, go too much into issues that should be relegated to the history section. Stuff about how and when something was discovered does not belong there, description should simply be a description of the animal. I think I'll write what I can find about the skull, just to set the tone. Then there's the issue of taxobox image. I personally like the current one, since it's the holotype, which gave it its name, but the hands seem to be mounted inaccurately. Some mounted casts look better in that regard, but the photos just don't look so good. Also, thanks to Dinoguy2 for the updated size comparison! FunkMonk ( talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have a whole, long paragraph about the history of attempts to estimate the size under Description? Surely this belongs in the History section, because all those previous efforts and estimates were rendered moot by the discovery of complete specimens. It may be interesting as a historical curiosity to see the kinds of numbers people got when we only had the arms to go on, but that's about the only relevance these obsolete studies have. Same for the stuff about previous speculation on diet before the skull was known. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I contend that the 6.358 tonne mass estimate from the Lee et al. paper represents false precision, and that according to normal practice in science, as well as the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, the value ought to be rounded to 6.4 tonnes. That represents a difference of about 0.7%. Fluctuations in weight of individual humans, as well as larger animals like elephants (a male African bush elephant weighs around 5.5 tonnes, similar to Deinocheirus), can easily exceed 1% on a daily basis, so reporting a mass estimate to 4 significant figures does't make sense. Lee et al. cite Benson et al. as the source of the estimate. But Benson et al. just have bone measurements in their supplementary material, "Dataset S1". Evidently the mass estimate came from those measurements and an equation.
Benson et al. give a series of mass estimates for other dinosaurs in Table 1; all of these are given to 2 significant figures, and when they talk about error in mass estimates they cite Campione & Evans. Campione & Evans discuss mass estimate accuracies extensively and talk about a "25% mean prediction error" for estimates from bone measurements; this is incorporated into their Table 6. For example, their Brachiosaurus mass estimate of 35780 kg, corresponds to a range of 26840-44730 kg. Unless we provide an uncertainty range for the Deinocheirus estimate, using 4 significant digits is very misleading. WolfmanSF ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a new skeletal, made by bricksmashtv and posted on deviantart as CC-BY 3.0 (license is in bottom of right sidebar). I think this should be cropped and placed in the article, but I think this should be done by FunkMonk, as it was mostly you arranging the images. Most other new skeletals by bricksmash are also CC-BY 3.0, such as one of Chuandongocoelurus I already uploaded. IJReid discuss 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I understand the source might not be believable and I considered long enough whether I actually need to include this estimate, but I did because unlike some other estimations by the book (e.g. size based on braincase or illium which admittedly is unreliable), this was at least based on complete specimens. But what do you mean by messy? I've seen this type of writing in other articles (namely Dakoratpor and some other articles). Yes I thought about putting it as a separate sentence, but if I include this estimate as a separate sentence, the article looks messier (in my opinion) because the 2020 paper doesn't show a higher estimation in this case. Then would it be better to not use it at all? Junsik1223 ( talk) 03:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This hatnote has been added to the page several times in the last few months, then removed soon after as "unnecessary". I'd think such a hatnote would be very useful - Deinonychus and Deinocheirus have very similar-looking names, and as far as I can tell they're the only two true dinosaurs starting with "Deino", so non-experts could easily mix them up. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) ( talk) 08:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)