Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gorgosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Gorgosaurus

This is a belated nomination for featured article status of another collaborative effort from Wikiproject dinosaurs, which after conferring with (very busy) expert main contributor of content Sheep81 is felt to be comprehensive. The images are free and the article has been copyedited by me and other WP:dino editors over time. It is another piece in the puzzle of a future Featured Topic and I feel it is the equal to several other featured dino articles. Please tell us how we can improve it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
On the first case, There's the fact that the author is a respected paleontologist we have an article on engaged in conversation another one? The second checks out just fine for me, so it must have been a minor connection burp. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Circeus summed it up well on first one, on second, it worked ok for me...pdf issue? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Could be some weirdness related to the hotel I'm at while on the road. figured better to tell that someone is having issues than stay quiet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely - some links do seem a bit temperamental. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Another quality FA from WP:DINO. Except for some choppiness in life history section, everything looks great. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Read through, made some copyediting (mostly in paleoecology. I missed the bit about ALberta being annexed by the U.S., shame on me). My only small concern is that I'm not too sure whether "These are the only two described albertosaurine genera, although other undescribed species may exist." (under "Classification and systematics") is really necessary (new species would have fairly little impact. New genera, however...) Circeus (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Good point. I'd put in taxa for species as that can mean both species and genera, question is whether taxa is as easy to understand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, seems on par with the other featured dinosaur articles. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments: This was quite a good read. I just had two questions/comments before I support. Not being a dinosaur expert, hopefully I can ask these without sounding like a fool. :-p

Absolutely - ask away, the point is to make it readable and remove ambiguity :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. This sentence seems a bit off to me, though I could just be reading it wrong. "Typically for members of its family, dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small." Is there a word or two missing?
Both this sentence and the preceding have introductory clauses that qulaify Gorgy's attributes as typical of tyrannosaurids. Hence I pulled out the clause and replaced with a semicolon to connect the two sentences thus:
Like most known tyrannosaurids, Gorgosaurus was a bipedal predator weighing more than a metric ton]]; dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small.
Hopefully this highlights the second bit is also 'like most tyrannosaurids'. I could also replace the first 3 words with "Typically for members of its family" as well. Does that clarify it?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. The "Description" section seems to focus a great deal on the skull, while the rest of the body is briefly summarized in the last paragraph. I realize such features are often used to differentiate between animals, and not all the facts are available for dinosaurs. But it seems to unbalance the section in my opinion. Is there any extra info to include or a way to balance the section?
I'll have a think on this one, the big toothy skull is clearly a discussion point but appreciate the issue. later. Had a look, it is not too different in makeup from some of the other related dino FAs like Tyrannosaurus or Albertosaurus, but I think I'll be able to add some more material on other bits of the body. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The skull is mainly how we tell tyrannosaurids apart from each other and is usually considered their "signature" adaptation (ie, how we tell them apart from other dinosaur groups). Their postcrania are pretty standard between genera and other than the proportions aren't even that different from other theropods really. So the reason why it seems to focus on the skull is because the author is biased towards things that are more interesting for him to write about. :) Sheep81 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Guyinblack25 talk 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

One more thing of note, with the first image in "Descriptions" left aligned, should the rest of the images be staggered to maintain consistency? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
Depending on the resolution of the screens of individual readers, the infobox might collide with the image and create a lot of white space if it is right aligned. So well, I guess it's left aligned just in case. On a related note, it's best not to fix the size of individual images to a specific value unless the image contains letters, but just let them remain unspecified thumbs, otherwise the page won't adjust to individual user preferences. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I figured that might have been the reason. Should every other image also be left aligned to create a consistent appearance/staggered pattern? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
Doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere where the taxobox "touches" the text, but maybe it should be left, right, left right, or similar. It probably just comes down to aesthetics and seems very random on other articles. Here are the guidelines[1] Seems that it is preferred that subjects "face" the text. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I often alternate left/right unless there are issues with headings. I just realised the 'facing' issues and guess it applies to dinosaurs as well as humans :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Moral Support as member of WP:DINO; I have gone through it and tweaked a few things that struck me, but otherwise I think the information and formatting is up to par. I will also be available for fixes. J. Spencer (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I am a member of WP:DINO. The article looks quite nice. I have checked the text for clarity and grammar, and have only found a few things that struck me as off (fewer/less than confusion, etc). I am less familiar with tyrannosaurids than some other dinosaur clades, but this article seems to be good to go, based on comparisons with articles Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Albertosaurus. I have, however, replaced the tiny cladogram in this article with one that is more robust: if the text is going to discuss Gorgosaurus and its relationships with other tyrannosaurid genera (Daspleto-, Tarbo-, Alberto- and T. rex), then those other genera really should be included in the diagram (more than just a line indicating "to tyrannosaurines"). The old cladogram wasn't really illustrating the text next to which it was placed. On the issue of readability: I have no idea how to use the readability tool thing, though that might well be useful here. No other observations at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.