Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daspletosaurus

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Daspletosaurus

This is the twelfth dinosaur article nominated by WikiProject Dinosaurs and the third tyrannosaurid. It had a peer review here which has had no feedback outside of Project members in almost a week, although edits have been made directly to the article by non-Project editors in that timeframe. However, I believe it meets the standard set by previous featured dinosaurs such as Albertosaurus so I am submitting it here for judgment. All comments and criticisms are welcome, even from biased Everton or Manchester United supporters. :) Sheep81 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I should probably disclose that this is a self-nomination as I wrote most of the article. Sheep81 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, but we also did some work... Spawn Man 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say most. Sheep81 12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I disclose I am on WP dinos and have helped edit this one a bit. Still, I feel it is at least as good if not better than some of the other dino FAs WRT prose. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for now~~→Changed to Weak Support - I have every intention of removing my vote when the following things are fixed in a nice manner. 1) There are four red links in the article to subjects which would be nice to have a blue link to. 2) The paragraphs in the Description & the first paragraph in the Unamed Species section are about 1-2 lines too short - this could be solved by merging or expanding. 3) Overall, the article is too short for my liking, but I'll be willing to let this one go. That's about all. Cheers, Spawn Man 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The four red links don't look very notable to have an article on their own, FA criteria is based on comprehensiveness not length, if you feel it is to short what do you think can be added? You have to give more detail in your oppose. M3tal H3ad 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given more information off this discussion page prior, but I feel that a general expansion isn't an unheard of opposition reason. Good work on the red links. And yes, a dinosaur formation is reasonably notable. Spawn Man 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've de-reddened Darren Tanke. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, we'll see what we can do. Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearpaw Shale has been written, and the redlink to Bearpaw Sea was removed. Sheep81 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Support - Still not as long as I'd like it to be, but I don't see any real reason to oppose it not. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Support I looked this over at peer review but couldn't find anything to add, great work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Glad you like it. Think of it as a really, really big and not very nice canary. :) Sheep81 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support as a WP:DINO member and minor contributor; I am also available to make changes. J. Spencer 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I disclose I am a WP:DINO member and minor contributor to this article. This article is the eighth longest dinosaur article, longer than seven Featured dinosaur articles; quite a feat, considering it doesn't have the pop culture section that articles like Diplodocus have. Mr. Sheep has been very thorough. Problems were spotted during this article's peer review, but these have all been addressed. The prose seems readable, although I have difficulty judging this. 32 scientific papers are cited in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Firs! Somehow I missed you up here. I am actually intensely proud that this article does NOT have a pop culture section. I do hate them so. Sheep81 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. And yet, you wrote the current pop culture section in Dinosaur. Ironic, no? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, that was the only dinosaur article that really needed one! Aside from Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus I guess. Sheep81 05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Adults could reach a length of 8-9 meters (26-30 ft)" - en dashes should be used per WP:MOS. Epbr123 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched – for -. That character isn't on a standard U.S. keyboard, and they look identical in my IE text editing box. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; seems to meet all the requirements and is a well written article. Only one comment on the last paragraph, where it is initially mentioned that another Albertosaurine is 'possibly' found in the same formation. In the following sentences, Gorgosaurus and niche partitioning are mentioned. Is Gorgosaurus the albertosaurine being referred to in that first sentence? Make it a bit clearer. Good work anyway. Kare Kare 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it, and they're two different animals (two different geologic formations), so I threw in a distinction. J. Spencer 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And thank you J for fixing that. Sheep81 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good article, can't find anything there that would make me oppose.Legalbeaver 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review! Sheep81 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending copyedit.Changed to neutral til I can read through the whole thing. I've put up some areas that need a copyedit:

"Daspletosaurus (pronounced /dæsˌplito'sɔrəs/ or das-PLEET-o-SAWR-us; meaning 'frightful lizard') is a genus of tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in western North America between 80 and 73 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous Period.". I really think "between 80 and 73 million years ago" and "during the Late Cretaceous Period" ought to be reversed, though this may be personal taste.

Well, reversing the two would change the meaning here. If I write "...during the Late Cretaceous Period, between 80 and 73 million years ago," it suggests that the Late Cretaceous lasted from 80 to 73 million years ago. It was actually much longer than that, but Daspletosaurus wasn't around for the whole time. I don't think that implication is there when its written the other way around, although I could be wrong. It also goes from specific to general, similar to "tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur" in the same sentence. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Daspletosaurus is closely related to the more recent Tyrannosaurus, and shares numerous anatomical features with its much larger relative" Redundant and awkward. Is there a better way to phrase "more recent"?

Which part is redundant and awkwards? Is "shares... features" implied by "closely related"? Would it read better as "Daspletosaurus is closely related to the much larger and more recent Tyrannosaurus" or did you have something else in mind? As far as the "most recent" bit, I'm not sure what else to use there. I tried "younger" but that obviously has other meanings. T. rex IS more recent, by several million years. I can't think of any other way to phrase it that doesn't add a bunch of extra words. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Daspletosaurus is closely related to the much larger and more recent Tyrannosaurus" just fine if there's no better way to say "more recent".Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switched that sentence in. What about "geologically younger"? Sheep81 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Like most known tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus was a multi-ton bipedal predator equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other genera. It probably was similar in weight to a modern white rhinoceros or a small elephant." No need to repeat "Daspletosaurus" where a pronoun would suffice. Try to avoid splitting the infinitive.

I don't see an infinitive in that sentence but I assume you would rather it read "It was probably..." That does sound better. Done. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, that's what I meant.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In some areas Daspletosaurus coexisted with another tyrannosaurid, Gorgosaurus, though there is some evidence of niche differentiation between the two." Could use a comma. I would prefer "with the tyrannosaurid".

Would you agree with a comma after "areas"? And "with the tyrannosaurid" de-emphasizes the fact that both *D* and *G* are tyrannosaurs, which is a major reason why this animal is interesting and kind of the only point of including that sentence in the lead. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances of choppy prose. Example: "Daspletosaurus shared the same body form as other tyrannosaurids. A short S-shaped neck supported the heavy head. In contrast to the massive skull, the forelimbs were extremely small, bearing only two digits. Of all tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus had the longest forelimbs in proportion to body size."

That is choppy. I'll fix it. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It was discovered in 1921 by Charles Mortram Sternberg, who thought it was a new species of Gorgosaurus. However, it was not until 1970 that the specimen was fully described by Dale Russell". "However" seems redundant- the sentence still flows without it.

Removed, thank you. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Two or three additional species have been assigned to the genus Daspletosaurus over the years, although as of 2007 none of these species have received a proper description or scientific name. In the meantime, all are assigned to Daspletosaurus sp. although this does not imply that they all are the same species." The "current" parts of the paragraph seem unnecessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "current" parts. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like having "as of 2007" and "in the meantime". Since this is an ever-evolving encyclopedia, it's not necessary.Wafulz 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How else might it be implied that this condition (unnamed, undescribed species) is temporary, and will be corrected with time, and that for now, they are referred to with the same name, but that will not always be the case? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it is ever-evolving, we can change it if and when they are described, or the year changes, right? Sheep81 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Along with the holotype, Russell designated a specimen". Holotype should be wikilinked.

Holotype is synonymous with type specimen, which is already linked earlier in that section. Should I link both or change "holotype" to "type specimen", do you think? Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I suppose "type specimen" could also mean a neotype or lectotype, and apparently they actually do link to different articles. So I'll just link both as you suggested! Sheep81 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all that I've looked at right now, though I'm sure there's more tweaking to be done.--Wafulz 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over, I'll make changes immediately. Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support there are few little quirks in the writing (I too would like to see the period and the specific time reversed in the first sentence), but not enough that it really needs a copy-edit before I can support; it's an easy read, informative and seems comprehensive. I am sad to see that redlinks have been removed on the basis of an unactionable oppose. Redlinks are good. I was going to put the remaining redlink back, but I leave it to your discretion. Yomangani ^talk 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just wait till the nom passes, then stick 'em back in then :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! The removed redlink was Bearpaw Sea, which was covered in the Bearpaw Shale article. After writing Bearpaw Shale I didn't see a need to have another article for Bearpaw Sea, so I removed the redlink. I would never remove an informative redlink just because I wanted an article to pass, haha! Sheep81 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.