Wikipedia:Peer review/Triceratops/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Triceratops)
Hi, this article is scrubbing up OK on its way to FAC. We worked on Stegosaurus and Diplodocus , both of which are now Featured Articles. Anyone see some other issues before having a tilt at FAC? cheers Cas Liber 10:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some issues at hand:
- header: ...collected for over a century can it simply include what century?
- (OK, rewritten that one to sound less vague)
- POV: Triceratops is the best known... (statement unsourced).
- "this beak may also be have been used in self-defense." (unsourced) speculative in nature.
- links: not linked, red links and articles for creation: 1990, 1970, 1993, 1922, Juvenile, T. horridus, T. prorsus, T. brevicornus, T. elatus, T. calicornis, T. obtusus, T. hatcheri, Bruce Erickson, Lancian faunal stage, etc.
- (I've created stubs for Rudolph Zallinger (solved a few redlinks that one :)), Schlaikjer and Erickson - the individual Triceratops species prbably shouldn't have them. Will go down the page. Time for breakfast now...)
- use of comma
- (commas are generally considered better to use thn parentheses, however it does cause confusion sometimes. I'll try and split or tweak a few sentences)
- typo error
- "Triceratops is also the official state fossil of South Dakota, and the official state dinosaur of Wyoming"; "It is a common pop culture dinosaur" (unsourced).
- (thanks for pointing out that sentence, I have rewritten it - as far as it being unsourced, I figured the length of the pop culture refs would be self-explanatory in highlighting its commonness in use)
- i'm not sure if there's a common english use for the term: Triceratops to merit the italics format. if there's none, i'm not sure if it should be so, please correct me if i'm wrong. --RebSkii 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- (As they are scientific names, the standard practice on all the dino pages has been italics)
- (PS: Thanks for all the input - gittin' there...............) Cas Liber 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)