Wikipedia:Peer review/Daspletosaurus/archive1
Is this the next dinosaur stomping its way to featured article status? I'd like to think so. But then again, I wrote it, so I'm posting it here for peer review! A lot of the content has already been vetted by WP:DINO editors, but any suggestions to improve to the article in any way will be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Sheep81 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sheep, I've added this to Scientific peer review as well. We've often been frustrated by the lack of peer review of WP:DINO articles, but Styracosaurus received quite a few comments on its scientific peer review, a process which I don't believe existed last year when we were submitting a lot of articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments: Overall, a very impressive effort from our whizkid Sheep. I'll make a few comments here, as I don't want to edit the text without consulting everyone about these changes.
- "Like all known tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus was a multi-ton bipedal predator[...]" Is this true? While I understand the debate concerning a certain genus, and whether or not it was a juvenile, some online sources indicate Nanotyrannus wasn't exactly multi-ton. As it's a tyrannosaurid, whatever it was, perhaps this portion could be rephrased somehow? "Like all well-known tyrannosaurids..."?
- Changed to "most known tyrannosaurids"... I think the Nano = T. rex debate is pretty much settled at this point, but we'll give Bakker and Larson the benefit of the doubt. :) Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Like all known tyrannosaurids, Daspletosaurus was a multi-ton bipedal predator[...]" Is this true? While I understand the debate concerning a certain genus, and whether or not it was a juvenile, some online sources indicate Nanotyrannus wasn't exactly multi-ton. As it's a tyrannosaurid, whatever it was, perhaps this portion could be rephrased somehow? "Like all well-known tyrannosaurids..."?
- "Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other species." Wouldn't genera be better here, as I assume we're comparing Daspletosaurus to Tyrannosaurus, etc?
- Duh! Changed. Thank you. Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other species." Wouldn't genera be better here, as I assume we're comparing Daspletosaurus to Tyrannosaurus, etc?
- The scale diagram shows the correct number of fingers, and the feet seem to be proportionate... ;)
- I have an image from Columbia University that shows that D. torosus walked around on its metatarsals and so... never mind. :) Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- The scale diagram shows the correct number of fingers, and the feet seem to be proportionate... ;)
- "On the other hand, Phil Currie and colleagues find Daspletosaurus to be more closely related to Asian tyrannosaurids like Tarbosaurus and Alioramus." Aren't there several authorities who consider Tarbosaurus a junior synonym of Tyrannosaurus, and place them as species within the same genus? If so, how would Daspletosaurus be more closely related to Tarbosaurus than Tyrannosaurus (or, rather, wouldn't it be good to clarify that there are some researchers who disagree about which ones are most closely related to one another)?
- Mmmm... yes. Let me think how to write this... Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- How about now? Is it precise enough? Too clunky? Feel free to edit away. Sheep81 04:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that works for me. I also inserted your tyrannosaurid size comparison chart, as I thought it might be useful in this article since there is already an appropriate section on size, but if you'd prefer to use Dinoguy's cool theropod shape/size comparative diagram, that would also work. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mmmm... yes. Let me think how to write this... Sheep81 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "On the other hand, Phil Currie and colleagues find Daspletosaurus to be more closely related to Asian tyrannosaurids like Tarbosaurus and Alioramus." Aren't there several authorities who consider Tarbosaurus a junior synonym of Tyrannosaurus, and place them as species within the same genus? If so, how would Daspletosaurus be more closely related to Tarbosaurus than Tyrannosaurus (or, rather, wouldn't it be good to clarify that there are some researchers who disagree about which ones are most closely related to one another)?
- More later, as I think of stuff. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Well.... ;) Nah, I couldn't... :) Spawn Man 06:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments OK, I'm back for more.
- "The type specimen of Daspletosaurus torosus (CMN 8506) is a partial skeleton..." compare this to later in the paragraph: "Aside from the type specimen, there is only one other complete skeleton". This probably needs clarification.
- Fixed, thank you. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The type specimen of Daspletosaurus torosus (CMN 8506) is a partial skeleton..." compare this to later in the paragraph: "Aside from the type specimen, there is only one other complete skeleton". This probably needs clarification.
- "The higher and broader muzzles of tyrannosaurines like Daspletosaurus are mechanically stronger than the lower snouts of albertosaurines like Gorgosaurus, although tooth strengths are similar between the two species." The first part of the sentence discusses two genera, without mention of species. The end of the sentence refers to two species. Either the specific names should be included, or the last word should be changed to genera. I'd change it myself, but I don't know which you would prefer.
- Actually the comparison was between tyrannosaurines and albertosaurines, if you read closely. So even worse! I changed it to "groups" because it sounded better than "subfamilies". Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The higher and broader muzzles of tyrannosaurines like Daspletosaurus are mechanically stronger than the lower snouts of albertosaurines like Gorgosaurus, although tooth strengths are similar between the two species." The first part of the sentence discusses two genera, without mention of species. The end of the sentence refers to two species. Either the specific names should be included, or the last word should be changed to genera. I'd change it myself, but I don't know which you would prefer.
- Same thing here: " A full-grown Daspletosaurus (TMP 85.62.1) from the same formation also shows tyrannosaur bite marks, showing that attacks to the face were not limited to younger animals. While it is possible that the bites were attributable to other species..."
- Added "sp." after Daspletosaurus. "Genera" sounded odd there to me. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Same thing here: " A full-grown Daspletosaurus (TMP 85.62.1) from the same formation also shows tyrannosaur bite marks, showing that attacks to the face were not limited to younger animals. While it is possible that the bites were attributable to other species..."
- We'll want to blueify these red links, if possible. Nothing else really sticks out, that I can see, but you may want to have one of the other WP:DINO staff go over this with a fine-toothed comb. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe I'll write something up real quick for Bearpaw Sea/Shale. Greg Erickson and Darren Tanke are the other two red links right? Yeah... later. Thanks Firs, you're a huge help as usual. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. What are you still doing up? You mentioned going to bed an hour ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe I'll write something up real quick for Bearpaw Sea/Shale. Greg Erickson and Darren Tanke are the other two red links right? Yeah... later. Thanks Firs, you're a huge help as usual. Sheep81 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- We'll want to blueify these red links, if possible. Nothing else really sticks out, that I can see, but you may want to have one of the other WP:DINO staff go over this with a fine-toothed comb. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)