Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stegosaurus/archive1

Stegosaurus

Hi there, I feel this has most of what has been written about Stegosaurus, thus is comprehensive, neutral and I've tried to write a nice intro. Lemme know what y'all think Support and self-nom. Cas Liber 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Has had Peer Review and I felt we dealt with as much as we could. Cas Liber 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article needs to be expanded, I'm sure there is more information available. Overall, a lot of very short sections, some parts are listy, more prose would be advisable. The "Popular culture" section is a third of the entire article which is not acceptable for a scientific topic. Also, pop culture has merely one footnote. Sloan21 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying to deal with listy feel. Have added a couple of refs to pop culture - not sure how to reference films though. Link to IMDB? Cas Liber 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was stegosaurus really the shape indicated in the scale picture? It looks like it's been squashed (as if it ran headlong into a wall!). Generally the article looks OK, but I would have thought it would be a bit longer. Terri G 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, alot of dinosaurs' postures have changed over recent years and Stegosaurus is one whose tail was held up high and front down low, giving it an odd appearance.Cas Liber 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The sections feel all together too short, and I'm not keen on the Plate Arrangement content being a list.—Abraham Lure 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If too listy, do people feel, for instance, that one subheading 'Plates' is better than 3 (Plates/Plate function/Plate arrangement)?Cas Liber 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to address the concerns listed above, I merged two of the shorter sections and expanded one section, adding details about Stegosaurus height and juvenile measurements, with references. I also added some other details. The Popular Culture section is now much less than 1/3 of the article (450 of 2,974 words, not including the footnotes and stuff at the end, meaning it represents about 15% of the article). I support this article's FA status: Stegosaurus is one of the best-known dinosaurs. The references come almost entirely from professional paleontological papers, from Marsh's 1879 description to Fastovsky et als 2005 paper on dermal plate function. There are also a number of book references and museum links. The images are current, and fall within the current scientific theories concerning what Stegosaurus looked like. The content is stable and is not the subject of constant edit wars. The length is sufficient in that it accurately describes each of the species of Stegosaurus, even the dubious species, how these species differed from the holotype, who first described them, and when. Worthy article. (For the record, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs).Firsfron of Ronchester 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I fixed your references (footnotes follow punctuation, please read WP:FN), this article is very listy and needs to be converted to (hopefully compelling and brilliant) prose, and the popular culture contains a whole lot of trivia. Sandy 15:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for making these minor fixes to the article. There are two lists in this article. The first lists the various species, and the second the four types of plate arrangement theory which have been proposed over the years. I'm certainly willing to convert both of these to paragraph form, but our Featured Articles Albatross, Gray Wolf, Jaguar, Orca, etc, use lists for their respective species. Is it really a good idea to convert these lists of species into paragraph form? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: I will work on the popular culture section later today. Thanks for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like lists when the content would make good prose, but recognizing that is perhaps a personal preference, I haven't made that an objection. The fixes to help the article conform with WP:FN's where to place ref tags are thanks to User:Gimmetrow's fabulous new ref fixer. Sandy 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've made some adjustments, mostly to the popular culture section, trying to address your concerns. There's still trivia-type information in there, but I tried to present it as more cohesive, with the examples listed to provide support for the statements made about Stegosaurus being one of the more widely-known (or recognized) dinosaurs. If this is still unacceptable, I'll keep working on it.Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Comment - ~~from the Cinema section: "a roaring Stegosaurus, which behaves like an irritable rhinoceros and charges" - the irritable rhinoceros comment needs a source or it's POV.~~—Abraham Lure 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence fixed. The part about the "irritable rhino" has been removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative if people still feel unhappy about listiness would be keeping the species as listed but putting the doubtful ones into a text paragraph.Cas Liber 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly willing to make the edits, if it's still too "listy" for folks. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Just comparing it with other Dinosaurs FAs, this article (about a popular dino) is of much lower quality. The Description section could be expanded and the prose improved. eg: The fact about the juvenile stego is incorporated separatly in the section, while it should be part of a description about the dino growth or the history of discovery. In addition, could you add the range of the fossile in the infobox? One more thing, if we follow the convention used in other Dino FAs, you should write in the lead: Stegosaurus...is a genus of Stegosaurid, armored Dinosaurs... CG 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consistency is good, but each article doesn't need to begin with the same sentence. I will certainly incorporate your other suggestions into the article, although this nomination has failed. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]