Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 10, 2022
Comments
[edit]"The main page article has a scientific terminology error. It says "Mosasaurus had jaws capable of swinging back and forth and was capable of powerful bites, using dozens of teeth designed for cutting prey.", but the teeth were not "designed", they were "adapted", which is what the full articles states. Hkandy (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I was notified that the Mosasaurus article I wrote for FA was just scheduled for TFA, though I was not aware of the now-closed discussion. I do have two comments.
- Why are Ophinocodon and Apokryltaros considered FAC nominators? Ophinocodon did not meaningfully contribute to the article and their edit history on it is either vandalism or counterproductive edits that we have reversed. Per the article's edit history[1], Apokryltaros only made one edit since I overhauled the article in Nov. 2019. Sorry if this is a little petty.
- Regarding the unaddressed comments by @FunkMonk: and @Lythronaxargestes: regarding a better image for the article, I recommend the life restorations of M. hoffmannii (A and B) as they show the impressive prowess that inspired the genus' depiction in the film in a scientifically accurate way. Alternatively, I think B and C would be great images for the TFA too.
Pinging @Wehwalt: and @Sheila1988:
Thanks! Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not petty at all. For those for whom the bronze star is motivation enough to get an article to FA, proper recognition is important. I am sorry for the oversight, and do not know why three editors were listed in the way they were. As for the image, I have no objection to the replacement. Such things are routinely done. Go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can imagine the nominator just listed the three main editors of the article by edit count (if that even adds up)? But yeah, should just be the FAC nominator. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I just listed the main editors by edit count rather than looking into their full contribution. I've made the edit on the nom page for posterity, so it now only shows 1 editor. Sheila1988 (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can imagine the nominator just listed the three main editors of the article by edit count (if that even adds up)? But yeah, should just be the FAC nominator. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not petty at all. For those for whom the bronze star is motivation enough to get an article to FA, proper recognition is important. I am sorry for the oversight, and do not know why three editors were listed in the way they were. As for the image, I have no objection to the replacement. Such things are routinely done. Go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)