Talk:Titanoceratops/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll read through and copyedit as I go and use edit summaries to explain (please revert if my change accidentally guffs the meaning)!, and pop questions down below. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Errr, "Triceratopsin"? - I have never heard this term - I can't see it on google searches either, I'd stick with "member of Triceratopsini" maybe.....~~

Done

The sentence that begins, " The possible contemporaries from the two formations include...." is a bit listy - I'd rework it as "The possible contemporaries from the two formations include the carnivorous Bistahieversor sealeyi and "Saurornitholestes" robustus, and plant-eating Kritosaurus navajovius, Naashoibitosaurus ostromi, Anasazisaurus horneri, Parasaurolophus tubicen, Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus, Sphaerotholus goodwini, Stegoceras validum, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis, Pentaceratops sternbergii, an unnamed ornithomimid, and an indeterminate centrosaurine." - just to break it up a bit and give it some context. on second thoughts, see FunkMonk's comment below, which I think I agree with.

Removed info that was already mentioned in lead or does not have that much to do with Titanoceratops

~~"The identification of Titanoceratops as a triceratopsin suggests that there is a five million year ghost lineage leading the more derived chasmosaurines such as Eotriceratops." - "leading to"?~~

done

"A moderately diverse amount of fauna are known" - err, "number"..."array" of fauna ("amount" is wrong word...)

Part of information removed

Down in fauna subsection Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done now.

~~"Both formation are last Campanian in age" - latest?~~

Done

A little drive by comment, the lead is way too long (also goes for the Corythosaurus article). It almost replicates the entire article! Two thirds could easily be cut, especially the faunal list. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is now a better size. IJReid (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best to use a consistent reference style - choose a way to list authors and make them all the same (e.g. Smith, John; Jones, Sam; etc.)

Done

Regarding comprehensiveness, I think there are some other papers worth inspecting and possibly adding - I can try and fetch some fulltexts of this, this and this and this (last one is by Dodson, so good to look at) to see of there is any mention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the wick paper describing Bravoceratops notes the two taxa (Bravoceratops and Titanoceratops) have a large epijugal horn but questions whether the latter is a genus that should be recognised. I can send pdf. If you want I can get the others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be great! IJReid (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please compare the text in subsection "Distinguishing characteristics" with the original source; I think it is uncomfortably close paraphrasing. Sasata (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agree - needs rewording. Not a huge amount but definitely does. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

- paraphrasing segments need rewording before this can be assessed.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

- several articles not used. Due the the low number of articles citing material, it is important to review all.

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- I am closing this one without listing at this time. I offered to get articles and received no reply. I don't have a problem with that as such but the articles need reviewing somehow as the low number of articles cited means even one or two missing may mean a large chunk of info and context are not here. Also, the section "Distinguishing characteristics" needs rewriting. I think it is best to close this and re-nominate once these are done. I'd be happy to review again or might even improve it myself (and someone else can review). I didn't have the time so far.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it passed GA review, I found this an unusually well-written and informative article, about a beastie that's new to me. I came to it from the fossil tree stump photo, having just added another from a (then) working coal mine. These stumps were/are quite a hazard when encountered in the roof (back) of the underground mine, as they could (and did, in the early days) fall & kill miners! --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]