Science (control)
Brontosaurus
Language openings emphasize different things.
Something to inspect — not a judgment of bias or bad faith.
Overview
Use this briefing to choose what to inspect. The tabs contain the underlying comparisons.
Open the live English Wikipedia article ↗The exact rewrite detector loaded 28 of 35 expected snapshots from the public revision history. It withholds the result rather than treating gaps in readable history as evidence.
Different websites cited: 10 → 51. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Did editors fight over it?
The page was not dominated by back-and-forth undoing. A quiet rewrite can still matter — it just means few people fought it on the page. About 1,085 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 4.3 years old or newer. 17.2% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 86.1% of what is there now (most of the current text comes from a small group of accounts; 164 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-07-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Citations, Framing, Versions.
Not available in this export: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Facts. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
Rewrite analysis has incomplete source coverage
The exact rewrite detector loaded 28 of 35 expected snapshots from the public revision history. It withholds the result rather than treating gaps in readable history as evidence.
Persistence-weighted changeThe share of wording lost, weighted so text that survived more snapshots counts more. by interval
Each row reports established wording lost, standing wording gained, and paired change as a replacement lead. The bar shows loss for continuity with earlier reports. Below-floor anomalies remain descriptive evidence but cannot receive exact confirmation. A coverage gap is shown descriptively but excluded from detector decisions. Candidate-window labels report the exact revision-level decision for the broader window containing that interval.
How the detector reached this state
- 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.Candidate signal foundThe coarse scan found a deletion-heavy window worth exact checking.
- 2 · Interval scoring27 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
- 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
- 2006-07-01Loss 8.2%, Gain 15.0%, Replacement lead 8.2%167 removed · 305 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 25.2%, Gain 6.6%, Replacement lead 6.6%1,019 removed · 268 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2006-07-01 → 2007-07-01
- 2007-07-01Loss 37.4%, Gain 10.8%, Replacement lead 10.8%1,841 removed · 529 added PWRRejected candidate window: 2006-07-01 → 2007-07-01
- 2008-01-01Loss 5.5%, Gain 23.5%, Replacement lead 5.5%264 removed · 1,123 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2015-07-01Loss 79.0%, Gain 205.3%, Replacement lead 79.0%5,616 removed · 14,601 added PWRExcluded: missing source coverage
- 2016-01-01Loss 1.4%, Gain 2.8%, Replacement lead 1.4%226 removed · 462 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 9.3%, Gain 1.9%, Replacement lead 1.9%2,914 removed · 590 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 1.0%, Gain 0.9%, Replacement lead 0.9%408 removed · 373 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 1.2%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%657 removed · 62 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%103 removed · 70 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 1.1%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%922 removed · 123 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.7%, Gain 0.3%, Replacement lead 0.3%1,686 removed · 253 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 0.1%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%53 removed · 91 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 0.7%, Gain 0.4%, Replacement lead 0.4%813 removed · 520 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 0.3%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%430 removed · 83 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 1.0%, Gain 0.2%, Replacement lead 0.2%1,496 removed · 262 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%761 removed · 135 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 0.2%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%434 removed · 35 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 2.5%, Gain 1.6%, Replacement lead 1.6%4,753 removed · 3,051 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.3%, Gain 0.2%, Replacement lead 0.2%664 removed · 443 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 5.6%, Gain 3.5%, Replacement lead 3.5%12,362 removed · 7,703 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 3.4%, Gain 0.9%, Replacement lead 0.9%7,990 removed · 2,085 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.0%, Gain 0.0%4 removed · 31 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.4%, Gain 0.1%, Replacement lead 0.1%1,072 removed · 193 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.6%, Gain 1.1%, Replacement lead 0.6%1,893 removed · 3,250 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 1.0%, Gain 0.2%, Replacement lead 0.2%3,199 removed · 627 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.5%, Gain 0.0%, Replacement lead 0.0%1,785 removed · 130 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at 2006-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 50 websites were cited more (or newly), 9 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 209. Different websites: 10 → 51.
Mix of citation types: — → journal 54%, book 22%, web 14%, news 9%, report 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| svpow.com | 0 → 5 |
| archive.org | 0 → 5 |
| ghostarchive.org | 0 → 5 |
| time.com | 0 → 4 |
| evolbiol.ru | 0 → 4 |
| doc.rero.ch | 0 → 4 |
| nytimes.com | 0 → 4 |
| marsh.dinodb.com | 0 → 3 |
| academia.edu | 0 → 3 |
| lexico.com | 0 → 2 |
| discovermagazine.com | 0 → 2 |
| qeios.com | 0 → 2 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| apologeticspress.org | 2 → 0 |
| britannica.com | 1 → 0 |
| infoplease.com | 1 → 0 |
| imdb.com | 2 → 1 |
| unmuseum.org | 1 → 0 |
| en.wiktionary.org | 1 → 0 |
| angelfire.com | 1 → 0 |
| dinoruss.org | 1 → 0 |
| lhl.lib.mo.us | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Cross-language lead comparison
How the opening of the article presents the topic in different languages. Disagreement is a reason to read carefully, not a final answer.
EN provides more specifics on discovery location, naming dates, anatomy/sizes, coexisting taxa, and study details than MK or IT. IT and EN both note ongoing taxonomic debate but differ on study team description; MK omits the debate entirely. Time ranges are more precise in EN/IT than MK.
Languages compared: en, mk, it.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| discovery details | missing elsewhere | type species B. excelsus based on partial skeleton lacking skull from Como Bluff, Wyoming “based on a partial skeleton lacking a skull found in Como Bluff, Wyoming” | not mentioned | EN, MK, IT |
| species naming dates | missing elsewhere | B. parvus in 1902 and B. yahnahpin in 1994 “two more species of Brontosaurus were named: B. parvus in 1902 and B. yahnahpin in 1994” | not mentioned | EN, MK, IT |
| 2015 study attribution and consensus | differ | 2015 study by Emmanuel Tschopp and colleagues; some paleontologists still consider it a synonym | 2015 study by joint England-Portugal group; not all paleontologists agree | EN, IT |
| time period precision | differ | 156 to 146 million years ago during the Kimmeridgian and Tithonian ages “lived about 156 to 146 million years ago (mya) during the Kimmeridgian and Tithonian ages” | Late Jurassic... extinct by end of Jurassic | EN, MK |
| detailed anatomy and size estimates | differ | robust cervical vertebrae, forelimbs short and stout, hindlimbs elongated; B. excelsus 21–23 m and 15–20 t, B. parvus 19 m | long thin neck... up to 15 tons and 22 metres long | EN, MK, IT |
| Morrison Formation fauna | missing elsewhere | coexisted with Diplodocus, Barosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and others | not mentioned | EN, MK, IT |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Versions we used
These are the exact public Wikipedia versions behind the checks on this page. Open any link to read the original. Wikidata item: Q3222766.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Brontosaurus | open version 1374721241 | 2026-09-13T19:11:39Z | 47,520 |
| it | saved | Brontosaurus | open version 152416474 | 2026-09-10T23:59:58Z | 31,278 |