Talk:Sinoceratops/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 21:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm going to review this nomination. I haven't done a review in a while so I could be a little rusty, but we'll see how it goes. My method is to say overall comments on the article, review it section by section, suggest improvements, check all the references and finally compare to the Good Article Criteria. I'll leave a note on the nominator's talkpage when I'm ready for your response. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 21:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

So, the article has been around since May 2010 when it was created as a stub by Abyssal. Since then it has gradually expanded with the most significant being by Evangelos Giakoumatos on 6-7 December 2013. The nominator of this GA has performed a small expansion with the addition of some sections and references, and a taxbox, and that was around the time on nomination. Throughout its history (which doesn't have that many revisions) it has remained stable with no edit wars, although an image was removed but replaced again, but I have no concerns over that. The general shape of the article is comprehensive and acceptable; it isn't overly long but that isn't a bad thing. And there's no dead links or ambiguous links on the page, so that's fine.

Section analysis

Lead

The lead conveys all the information we need to know in three paragraphs and seems pretty good to me. However, none of the places in China are linked to so I have no idea where they are, and your descripive list seems too long and wordy in the second paragraph. Try removing "moderately-built" and simplifying "quadrupedal", because although many people understand that, many people don't, so the language can't get too technical. I'm not saying it is too technical and that has been addressed with a link to quadrupedalism but remember to err on the side of caution. It's good that all the lengths have been converted to imperial and metric, but the very last sentence is pretty pointless, in my opinion. Contemporaries - is this the proper phrase to mean "other dinosaurs around at the time", and it is quite a long word given the amount of other long words in that sentence. What's the use of listing some other species with complicated names, say it a bit more readably.

Made more readable for other users.

I'm happy with the changes.

Etymology

This is explained properly and referenced, complete with name of namer, and date. Not much to criticize except perhaps it could be a bit longer?

Unless you have anything that says more, I don't think it can be expanded.

Description

First sentence, right away - ceratopsian??? You're making me Google it, so tell us what one is! Also, it assumes the reader knows what brow horns and frills are. Put it simpler, get a brief explanation or add more links. At least it is all referenced and we are given something to compare it to (the rhino), so it has some relevance to modern life.

Check over this section for me now.

Yes, that seems better.

Distinguishing anatomical features

I don't understand a word of this, tell the reader what the hell you're talking about. Far too technical. Also, the source is "Xu (2010)" - please be clear you mean the paleontologist earlier mentioned, because if the reader has to dig to find that, something's gone wrong.

I can't simplify the actual features, but I simplified the explanation and the other sentences.

"Features that differentiate [...] is a diagnosis" doesn't make sense to me. But good with the new ref.

Discovery

Again, some long words there, and to the uneducated masses the skull is the braincase (is there a difference?) and we don't know what fluvial sediments are either. The rest of that section is OK.

I linked to skull and braincase (the braincase is the internal structure at the back of the skull) and fluvial sedements.

That works now, thanks.

Classification

Seems fairly standard, although advanced centrosaurines are advanced how, and primitive centrosaurines mean to do with primates, right? Your image caption there isn't very informative, how can a drawing of the head have been restored? Or is it a drawing of a restoration, but wait, we don't know that dinosaur heads are "restored", as it requires experty knowledge again. You may wish to consider removing the link to S. zhuchengensis, as it redirects straight back here.

Linked and explained image better.

Your link now points to a disambiguation, so it isn't any clearer. Image is now good.

Paleoecology

Many long words, but also many references, so I'll let that one go.

The underlying problem here is evidently that there are too many technical words that require the reader to know about dinosaurs. Treat the reader as a moron, and simplify the language. Oh, and in External links, don't link to a blog.

Done

Thank you for the changes you have made. I pointed out a couple of things above and if you can address them we might be able to get this wrapped up today. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 13:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changes are good. I am now updating the GA checklist. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 590350946; if any have been added since then it will have moved around.

Most of these are from books so I am looking them up on Google Books to verify the information is there.

Ref 1, assuming good faith
Ref 2, information is on page
Ref 3, two meters seems correct
Ref 4, first two claims supported but can't find any mention of Shantungosaurus on the source's row for Sinoceratops
Ref 5, assuming good faith
Ref 6, information is on page
Ref 7, assuming good faith
Ref 8, assuming good faith
Ref 9, assuming good faith

Yes, this subject does seem to be mainly in books and not around the internet. If I wanted to check refs 1, 5, 7, 8 & 9 properly I could order them from the library but I have no doubt that any sourcing here is properly done.

I can give you a google books url for these books. For 1 see [1], 2 [2], 4 - It says under Huaxiaosaurus that it is probably a synonym of Shantungosaurus, 5 - unfortunately, I can't find an url for, 7 [3] mentions it, and cites it, 8 [4] try this, 9 [5] you can get the text there.

OK, that's all fine and sorted. Refs are

.

So, please work on my suggestions and then we can look at the criteria again.

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

That's a pass, will now promote. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]