Talk:Amphicoelias/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Delisting is not a common process over at WP:DINO, but since the Amphicoelias article was left in a rather unique situation of becoming a GA and then losing something like half its content once Maraapunisaurus was named as a separate genus. Thus, the contents of the article on their own constitute something that was never considered to be on the level of GA. Demotion is, then, appropriate, unless someone feels like taking up the task of expanding the article in the near future.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Perhaps merely an issue of organization, but the text jumps all over the place and does not make for a well flowing read regarding the different species, what they are, and what the actual animal was in terms of our modern understanding.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Doesn't seem to break the rules of any of these per say, but it worthy of note that half of the description section is made up of historical information, breaking the very concept of separating info into sections.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
There is one blog post but being from SV-POW I see no issue with it, as outlined at WP:DINO

C. It contains no original research:
There's a statement with no source that it's been considered an apatosaurine.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Not even close, this is the main issue. No dedicated history section despite history being the primary topic at hand with this often ignored species, and the description section is absolutely paultry once you remove the historical information.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The actual information on its classification in the classification section is mostly on the idea it's just Diplodocus, with merely the unsourced statement and a cladogram exploring it as its own taxon.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No images stand out as problematic, but it's relevant to note they're pretty low in number.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article passes a reasonable amount of criteria but it's so far from passing in terms of content coverage that it doesn't have any place remaining as a GA in my eyes.

HMMMM Gimme a week :) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about the split is that it should now be much easier to write a comprehensive article about the single species. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the status on this article? It's been open nearly 2 months and effectively all activity on both the article and this review has been at a standstill for most of it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta admit I got busy and totally forgot. I did manage to get the history and description mainly fixed up, so its just classification left. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lead would be appreciated as well. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All major fixes should now be done Lusotitan. I'll clean up references and other minor stuff promptly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in closing, but yes, this looks all clear. ~~Now who to nominate for demotion next...~~ Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]