Talk:Rajasaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial run-through

After my first read of the article, I'm not seeing much that needs improving... it's practically there as is. It is a really good article; but after a more thorough read of everything, we can start the fine tuning, etc. I will start the process with a couple of copy edits to a sentence I felt was awkward, which can be discussed/reverted if need be. By Fri. 9/18, I will post about whatever improvements it may need and we can start up all the discussions and the work.-- Rcej (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First issues

The way I like to review articles is to focus on a few issues at a time, as opposed to the entire article being reviewed in a big, overwhelming mega-post. So, on that note, let's begin with me explaining some of my copy edits. I removed a bunch of irrelevant stuff, due to the fact that Rajasaurus should be the focus of the article; there was simply too much content on every single subject surrounding Rajasaurus. Good writing, but irrelevance is not GA-friendly.

Moving on. The paleontology section would be better as a subsection of the description section. It's within the scope of the description. There should also be a subsection listing every species named in the Rajasaurus genus, with a little sentence about each. These are the tasks to be done first; no rush, though. I would help, but I should only do a few copy edits as the reviewer.-- Rcej (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the review and the copyedits. Although I feel the copyedits removed some germane material, I'm fairly happy with this compromise. There's only one known species of Rajasaurus (since only one partial skeleton has been found, there's no way there can be two species). There is no Paleontology section, only a Paleobiology section, and it is standardized the way it's been done on other FA and GA dinosaur articles, as standardization has been requested from several editors over the years. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If the paleobiology section should be a stand-alone section per that standardization, that's fine. I wish biology articles had a specific MOS, like chemistry and medicine do... it would surely make things easier. heh. Anyway, I do think paleobiology should be located above history of discovery though, for the sake of having the more science-oriented content readable together before the history. With history in between, it reads slightly choppy. Also, is In culture a standard section title, because if not, I think Cultural interest sounds better. Thx.-- Rcej (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the See also section, adding Lameta Formation and List of dinosaur-bearing rock formations could be considered , if appropriate. I initially expanded the stub article, which was substantially edited and improved by other Users as above from the Dinosaur Portal.Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...okay, I'm seeing now that the sections are best left in their current order; so we'll not bother with that. The article could stand another image, and if there's any more info to write on Rajasaurus, that would be great. Also, the article needs a navbox if there is one, and it must have a See also section. With that, if its the final version that everyone is happy with... let me know. It's odd that the nominating editor has shown no interest in this review process, yet.-- Rcej (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry, I haven't been around much lately except for last weekend. There currently aren't any relevant navboxes (although one could be made; I'm shy of the idea because of the mutability of classification). Is there anything you'd particularly like to see in "See also"? The geographical and geological context is discussed, so "Lameta Formation" and the location would be redundant... I think I've got a couple... J. Spencer (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello... and actually, I'm the one who should apologize, and I do; that was impatient of me to write. Moving on. What you have for see also is fine. Since there is no pre-existing navbox, it's a non-issue and it won't affect the review. Is there anything else that can be written on Rajasaurus, or is it pretty much covered in this article?-- Rcej (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's always more anatomical information that can be added, and we could add some of its Lameta Formation contemporaries to Paleobiology ("lived alongside X, Y, and Z"). J. Spencer (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes... anything specifically about Raj should be fully written about; but just a sentence or so about it's contemporaries. Also, a mention about the family to which the genus belongs might be cool, like 'Rajasaurus belongs to the family yada-yada, which was known for its yada-yada'.-- Rcej (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the contemporaries, a link to the pdf of the scientific description, and the designation of the type specimen. J. Spencer (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good addition. About losing the Narmada image, which couldn't be helped; we need to replace that loss with another image, if possible. The article can still get a GAC with one image, but it'll be more likely to be reassessed if some well-meaning wise-guy with a wikitude stumbles this way, down the road.-- Rcej (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the See also section, adding Lameta Formation and List of dinosaur-bearing rock formations could be considered , if appropriate. I initially expanded the stub article, which was substantially edited and improved by other Users as above from the Dinosaur Portal.Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything relevant, but not redundant feel free to add to see also.-- Rcej (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• On images, all other images than the one already in the articles are rather useless, due to being anatomically incorrect: [1] But maybe an image of the Narmada river can be used? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

An image of the river would be fine; and then we can wrap up this part of the review.-- Rcej (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Second issue

I'm thinking we need a taxonomy section; there are things that aren't really as clear as they maybe could be. Why is/what specific findings about the fossils places R. narmadensis in the subfamily Carnotaurinae? Why 'princely lizard of the Narmada'; is that significant as to the stature/behavior/predatorial prowess of R. narmadensis? If there is anything more precise on its taxonomy, such as that, it would be great to add.-- Rcej (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The etymology is actually fairly bland and typical as these things go, checking the write-up in the original description. The only thing they elaborate on is how the species name refers to being found across the Narmada Valley. "[word for really awesome and demanding your respect] lizard from [fill in blank location]" is a conservative format except for using Sanskrit instead of Latin or Greek for the first part. The part about being placed in Carnotaurinae is a bit trickier. J. Spencer (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see what you mean. Is there anymore relevant content or anything else you or anyone would like to add to the article; or is the article good to go? It fits GA criteria right now, IMO.-- Rcej (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I will drop a note to Dinoguy2, who is our resident theropod expert. J. Spencer (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've given it a few days, and nobody else has chimed in. J. Spencer (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't worry about that, then. But I would like to revisit the subject of taxonomy. Why are some abelisaurian genera in the sub-family carnotaurinae, while others aren't? The article needs to address Rajasaurus association with the carnotaurinae sub-family... and it doesn't really make that clear. It may take time to write/collaborate more on that, which I absolutely understand; one of my pulmonary disease articles is being reviewed, and I've had to write 5 new sections. Headaches. heh. Anyway, just a small par. or a couple crowded sentences might be enough. No hurry.-- Rcej (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the original description, it is allied to the carnotaurines because the dorsal process of the nasal bones are above the eyes, and there is a "frontal excrescence" (that blobby horn). J. Spencer (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job with that. A good note to end on, too. The article meets ga criteria; and not just in light of this recent addition... it was practically there from the start. You and everyone involved with the article have done fine work, and it shows. So, it is a pass. I'll finish all of the gac-stuff pronto. It was nice working with y'all, and good luck and well wishes on your future endeavors.-- Rcej (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I'm sorry I wasn't around as much as I would have liked. J. Spencer (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Rajasaurus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The review process went fairly smoothly, and the article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status, based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): The article could actually stand another image on the subject, but there aren't any suitable images available. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass