Talk:Ceratopsia/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I was a bit surprised when I realized this article was GA-class. The reassessment process is one I generally don't feel the need to use; Rajasaurus is another dinosaur article that probably doesn't meet the standard nowadays, but I don't think it's a pressing issue to de-list it. But it's on a much less important topic, and is pretty close to GA, whereas this article is nowhere near it, and on one of the major groups of Ornithischia. I looked at the GA review, and to my horror it was passed without a single suggestion, the reviewer merely praising it giving it an instant pass. To rectify this decision which does not at all hold up today, I've decided I need to file it for delisting, and hopefully somebody will improve and get it back here some day, deservedly. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In a few spots, such as in the first two sentences of the history section, I had to read multiple times to understand (I was unsure whether Hayden conducted the 1855 expedition). Later in that same section, Cope's dichotomy of Ceratopsidae and Agathaumidae is completely beyond my understanding. In the classification section, the definition of Coronosauria causes confusion, as it's at odds with its placement in two of the phylogenetic trees.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Didn't check every word against MOS:WTW, but no wordings stood out as poor to me. However, it has a discouraged layout in its use of multiple extremely short sections under their own subheaders.
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:
For the most part it's good, but the sources for omnivory are questionable. Ref 38 was not only a post on Flickr, but it also no longer even exists, so it has to be removed anyway. This just leaves the two-decade old Dinosaur Mailing List post by Naish. Now that's certainly a valid source, but in absence of even a mention in the actual literature I don't think it warrants inclusion.

C. It contains no original research:
The article is full of a variety of unsourced statements or whole paragraphs, most extensively throughout the Classfication section. At least one sourced statement is, additionally, unsupported by the given citation, so far as I can tell (that Aquilops could potentially be a leptoceratopsid, protoceratopsid, or ceratopsid.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Everything is to my knowledge fine in this regard. One could check the anatomy section against all its sources, but this seems excessive.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The palaeobiology section in particular is woefully inadequate, not covering certain topics at all (such as integument, despite having an image on the subject), and covering some others with literal two-sentence sections. The anatomy section makes no mention at all of postcrania. Nothing on the topic of ceratopsian is present beyond the barrest of details in the classification section. Lastly, the history section covers up to 1876 before dropping off a cliff with the exception of an unsourced, short, hard to understand note about ceratopsids (the only group even covered, since we didn't go into the 20th century to talk about the others).

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
As mentioned above a lack of detail is the main issue, but talking about three different phylogenetic matrices for no apparent reason, given two are over a decade old, is in my eyes going into excessive detail about the relationships of a few basal members of the group.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
The problems the article has stem from being written and reviewed too long ago, so this is unsurprisingly not an issue in this case.
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:
Most of the images are fine (though the skin impression image is a bit lost without a section), but the Montanoceratops and Psittacosaurus images are both inaccurate, the history section would be better served by an image of a specimen from the time, and the taxobox image does a poor job of showing the appearance of the animal shown.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Given it fails over half of the sub-criteria (and is far from meeting three of the criteria), the conclusion of a fail is obvious.

I could go on to pick on various individual statements, but I don't think it's necessary in light of how poorly it already fares just looking at the GA criteria. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some support and no objections to the demotion over at WT:DINO, so I'll complete the demotion given how far it is from meeting criteria. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]