Jump to content

Talk:Cryolophosaurus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

My first thoughts are that the article is in excellent shape and very close to GA quality. I will give a more detailed point-by-point review later, but first I wanted an explanation for a few things that struck me as odd:

  • The article uses parenthetical references for several scientific papers. This is, of course, an acceptable referencing style. However, elsewhere it uses "plain" references (i.e. no mention of the author in the body of the article, just in the ref itself). This seems to be more or less random. If there is a reason for this I'm missing let me know, otherwise one style should be picked and used throughout.
The years are the only things I find are in the brackets. They are like that because different references might have the same author. For example, many sentences say "So and so (date of publication) estimated the length of Cryolophosaurus to be ...", and because the publication year is listed, they can be differentiated from other refs. IJReid (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps my point was misunderstood. There is nothing at all wrong with "Author (date)" citations. My question is why this format is used in some sections, while in others the scientist who is responsible for the given knowledge is not mentioned in the body of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: It all depends on the content of the section. For size, estimations by different authors are often made by different features. In the case of distinguishing features, different features can often be identified by different authors. For stuff like paleoecology, unless there is contradicting information, to different studies can be combined for the best overall coverage. IJReid (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paleontologists are (red) linked, while others are not. Red links are OK, but it is not clear why only some of the paleontologists are linked.
Those would be the head authors of the study/article
Very good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top level sections shouldn't start with a left-aligned picture. Please re-arrange the pics so that doesn't happen.
Not anymore, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location_.282.29 FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nonetheless, do you mind if I move the "Discovery and naming" picture down one paragraph? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you did, the layout would be uglier, as the titles below will be squashed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like the "Paleopathology" section to be a bit longer if possible. It looks odd having a section that is one line long. Alternatively, the section header (and main link) can simple be removed as the material fits naturally into "diet".
Done for now. If the paragraph gets expanded a lot, I would like to remove it into its own section again.
  • The use of "recently" and similar should be avoided - give a date instead.
Tried to correct.

That is all for now. I will put the article on hold to wait for changes/explanations of the above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: I have finished all the above comments. Any more? IJReid (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a few more comments this evening. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: Any more comments, or is the article good to go? IJReid (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I got busy and did not make it back to this as quickly as planned. I should have some more comments for you within teh next 24 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

[edit]

First, I made some grammar tweaks. Please review those to make sure everything is acceptable.

General comment: The scientists' full name (not just last name) should be given on first usage.

done

Lead

[edit]
  • "including the single species" - "including" implies a group; suggest rewording (I usually used "known from one" or "with one known" for monospecific genera, but then you will want to change the "known from" already there - perhaps split into 2 sentences.)
done
  • "As of this year" - change to date
done
  • Species found in the same area is likely not important enough for the lead
done

Description

[edit]
  • "clearly a top predator" - does clearly really add anything?
done
  • do weight estimates really vary from 165kg to 460kg or is one an error? - regardless the smaller # should be listed first.
done
  • "this individual" - no context for "this", so probably something like "the most complete individual" or "one used for estimates" or something like that would be better. Alternatively (and perhaps preferably), put holotype paragraph first.
done

Material

[edit]
  • I would remove this subheader as unnecessary
done

Skull

[edit]
  • "which was discovered along with part of the rest of the skeleton" - seems completely unnecessary, perhaps drop entire phrase
done
  • The use as a social display piece seems like to be disputed, so should credit the scientist as per your guidelines for when to credit
done
  • "A recent study" - change to author + date (and rephrase sentence accordingly)
done

Distinguishing anatomical features

[edit]
  • Is the lesson on what a diagnosis consists of necessary?
removed
  • It is not clear is he two sets of distinguishing characteristics are competing or complementary (I assume the later, but it should be clear - use "additional" or similar.)
done

Cranial ornamentation

[edit]
  • This makes the "social display" bit in the "skull" section redundant, does it not? Perhaps remove that sentence from the skull section.
done

Diet

[edit]
  • This paragraph seems to contradict itself. If the ribs were only suspected/possible prosauropod, it should say so.
done

Paleopathology

[edit]
  • What does this small splint suggest?
not suggested in ref, to add would be OR
To be clear, the previous wording left me hanging - I expected an explanation where none was given. The new wording solves that concern.
  • A little drive by comment: "This bone is almost identical to Dilophosaurus and Sinosaurus, except for a small splint from the fibula located just above the ankle." Why is that relevant under palaopathology? It is basically comparative anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed

Paleoecology

[edit]
  • There doesn't seem to be much difference in content between the two paragraphs - suggest dropping the subheaders
done
  • "Dinosaurs lived on all seven continents, but Antarctica was the last continent to produce dinosaur fossils" - doesn't seem relevant, suggest dropping it
done
  • "Recent models" - replace with date ("models formulated in ...") or drop "recent"
done

That should just about do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: I have completed all the comments, is the article ready now? IJReid (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing I have at the moment is that the pics need Alt text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: Added alt text, all the changes made by you are good. IJReid (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Formal review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    A spot check did not reveal any close paraphrasing issues
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Referencing is excellent
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Nothing I can think of missing; off topic asides have been removed
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    A variety of sources and POVs are represented
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Perhaps a bit over illustrated for some tastes, but nothing serious
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am happy to promote Cryolophosaurus to GA status. Very good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryolophosaurus/GA1&oldid=602808030"