Talk:Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some copy editing done. Please revert or query anything you are not happy about.

Images need alt text.

added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several duplicate links need removing.

done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twards the end of the "Hand" section, there is a long paragraph ending in a quote, the last part of which appears to be unreferenced. I suspect that it is based on Bakker's excellent book, in which case could you repeat the cite immediately after "the long, spread toes of today's paddling animals such as ducks."

yes, added citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Since 1942, the mummy was referred to the new species Anatosaurus copei" Should that be 'referred to as the new species ...'?

not really, it is not the holotype, just a referred specimen. I simply removed the "new". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"which in 1990 was externalized in its own genus". "externalised" seems very odd. Is it a technical paleontology word? If not it needs changing.

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"in a 1942 monography" Should that be 'monograph'?

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"extended up to five centimeters beyond the fingertips" Convert?

changed, and adjusted/completed all other conversion templates. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of most sources are not in title case. They should be.

Hm, to my knowledge, this only applies to book titles, not journal titles? See examples in Template:Cite journal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But Grave secrets of dinosaurs: soft tissues and hard science, The dinosaur heresies and Hunting dinosaurs in the bad lands of the Red Deer River, Alberta, Canada: a sequel to The life of a fossil hunter are books I think.

Sure, changed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When giving page ranges, could you preface them with 'pp.'?

As above, I always thought that this is undesired for journal cites in WP (and in academia), see examples in Template:Cite journal? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's not what I was taught, but you can evidence your approach, so fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the copy edit and the comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bar the book titles I reckon that it meets the standards. It looks more or less FAC ready to me. Give me a ping when you nominate it and I'll comment.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Great work!

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed