Wikipedia:Peer review/Diplodocus/archive1
This page has been played with by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team. Someone has already rated it a Good Article, which was appreciated. It would be good to have this article looked over by folk unfamiliar with the subject as we've reached a bit of a lull.Cas Liber 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerly am concerned on how this article made it to GA status in its present shape. Now after I've edited it, it looks more the part but prior, I doubt it should have been given the title. I've fixed all the footnotes & shuffled the sections & texts around to make it look professional, but some problems still remain. The main problems are:
- The article needs a "Description" section before the "Discovery" section. How are we to know what was discovered if we don't know what it looks like. I'd put the "Paleobiology" section there, but that goes into different aspects, such as tails etc. We need just a solid chunk of a paragraph, maybe with a dino-human size comparison picture, which briefly goes over what it was like. Then we'd keep the other sections as they are in place now. (rather than do this, I added a 2nd introductory paragraph which can be expanded still. On another article I helped with (Banksia brownii), we were told 2 paras in intro is better.) Cas Liber 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "Paleobiology" section is the main offender. Most of its sections are too small. It looks more like a trivia section than an in-depth analysis of the dinosaur. Because the sections are so small, the tail pictures look huge & cramped in the section they're meant to be in. Try expanding this section; possibly enlist Sheepy to work on it.
- The "Classification" section is way too small. Expand it a bit. (Still waiting for my shipped copy of Dinosauria 2nd ed..........)Cas Liber 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "In popular culture" section is also too small. It have barely trivia pieces & the picture there looks out of place with the lack of text.
- Other than that, Diplodocus is a fair article that just needs some tlc to get it to FAC. Thanks... Spawn Man 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a second paragraph is always best, but I'd still like to see a "Description" section. Even if it's only giving basics.... Spawn Man 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Told ya Peer Reviews are a waste of time... Spawn Man 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)