Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triceratops

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Triceratops

Triceratops has undergone two wikiproject dinosaur collaborations in the past year and I feel it is now ready for FA status. I have read it and adjusted the sentence flow so I feel it is easy to read (i.e. well written), comprehensive, and has a reference section comparable to other dinosaur FAs. It has never been part of an edit war and has been fairly stable and conforms in format (headings and subheadings) to other dino FA pages. It is of comparable length (30.8 kB (4439 words)) to other dino FAs - Stegosaurus (36.5 kB (5328 words)) and Diplodocus (30.5 kB (4474 words)). nominated by Cas Liber 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as co-author and nominator Cas Liber 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I support this tentativly, assuming the some minor edits are made to the "Depictions in Popular Media" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.35 (talk • contribs)
• Support. Comprehensive article on a well-known dinosaur genus. 50+ inline cites from reliable sources (nearly all primary references from professionals in the field). Excellent research from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team. Prose not overly technical; any high school student should be able to understand the content. Length exceeds several other Featured Articles on dinosaurs. Current lead seems to summarize the article's contents. Illustrations give a sense of what the animal looked like both in life and as a fossil. Only one list (the list of species), so no "listcruft" feel. No objection here (for the record, I am a member of the WP:Dinosaurs team). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as co-author. It covers all of the topics that have attached themselves to this distinctive and popular dinosaur in a readable way, with numerous good illustrations, and is heavily referenced. I also support the species list, because it otherwise transforms into a paragraph that is very difficult to follow. J. Spencer 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as good as Dinosaur or Velociraptor. igordebraga ≠ 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It looks good overall. I just have a few minor issues that I'd like to see addressed:

• Units are not separated from their respective values by a non-breaking space ( ) as recommended in the MoS units of measurement. So the unite can get wrapped around to the following line. (thanks. done. picked up the last 2 (I think))
• The following technical terms may be unfamiliar to some readers and could be linked: thorax, ichnological, cladistic, and Jurassic. (done)
• centrosaurines and chasmosaurines might have been linked, although I see they are linked a sentence or two later. (they don't refer to the dinosaurs but subfamilies. will address this as it is a bit confusing)
• "RFTRA analysis" is used but not defined. The reader is left wondering what is meant.
• What is the "Hatcher-Marsh-Lull monograph"? Could this be clarified? (I've just added a couple of adjectives to clarify it a bit - best to link to a stub as it covers all horned dinosaurs and is a tale in itself)
• In the sentence "amplify and\or receive low-frequency sounds," could the "and\or" be replaced by something a little more polished? (done)
• In the last paragraph of "Functions of the horns and frill", please replace the hyphen with an — (done. commas probably better anyway)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good, but a number of things need to be fixed before it can reasonably contend for FA status:
  • please do away with years and decade links that are not parts of full dates, per WP:MOSNUM. (check)
  • Second paragraph of intro needs refs, since that content is not present in the article (it should probably be moved into "Depiction in popular media." (rewritten)
  • Intro does not properly summarize the "Paleobiology" section (rewritten)
  • The "Depiction in popular media" section is too short, and has no reference (that there is a "main article") is irrelevant to the section's status.
  • The name etymology is best integrated under "discoveries and species" (see comment below)
  • The "Origins" section suffers from a similar shortness. Additionally, placing evolutionary origins as a subsection of classification history leaves to be desired.
  • The lead states that "no full skeletons have been found," but there are several illustrations of apparently complete skeletons, or nearly so, in the article. Maybe the footnote should comment on that. (check?)
  • in "classification," it's not stated clearly and early enough in which subfamilies each of the two discussed classification put Triceratops. (check)
  • wordings:
    • "one of the last members of the Ceratopsidae" is ambiguous. Latest to go extinct? (check)
    • "In the first overview of horned dinosaurs in 1907"—this phrase is very poorly worded (check)
    • "two lineages, one of Monoclonius and Centrosaurus preceding Triceratops, the other with Ceratops and Torosaurus."—It's not clear that Triceratops is included in that first lineage. Sounds like three lineage, with the genus sandwiched in the middle. (check)
    • "not the only ceratopsian of its time at the end of the Cretaceous"—wordy and clumsy. (check)
    • "it was indeed an uncommon dinosaur"—It being which species? (check)
    • "The jaws were tipped with deep, narrow beaks"—I'd think a given animal could only have one beak... (check, although the idea was that there was a horny section to both upper and lower jaw)
    • "this beak may also have been used in self-defense."—Reference? (check [deleted])
    • "batteries of 36 to 40 columns"—This stumps me and invoke WP:JARGON. (check)
    • "vertical to near-vertical shearing configuration."—Same as previous (check)
    • "Like all ceratopsid teeth, the roots are split, making them very distinctive fossils."—Compared to what? They can't be that distinctive if all other species in the family have such split roots! (check)
    • "Their great size and massive teeth"—This needs to be re-written so that "their" clearly refers to Triceratops individuals/fossils instead of the teeth. (check)
    • "with some suggesting palms and cycads,[30][31] while others ferns in fern prairies."—Poor choice of conjunction. (check)
    • "Lull postulated that the frill may have served as anchor points for the jaw muscles to aid in chewing"—Why would that location be advantageous? (e.g. what arguments did he offer in avor of this theory) (check)
    • "the idea being discussed by C.H. Sternberg in 1917 and 70 years later by Robert Bakker."—Sounds like a "first" is missing here. (check)
    • "Related to combat with predators using horns, Triceratops are classically shown engaging each other in combat with horns locked."—The connection is at best unclear between the two parts of this sentence. (check)
    • "Additionally, although pitting, holes, lesions, and other damage on Triceratops skulls (and the skulls of other ceratopsids) is often attributed"—The subject of "is attributed" is "pitting, holes, lesions, and other damage," so the verb should be plural. (check)
    • "The large frill also may helped to amplify"—??? grammar? (check)
    • audacity references, more references, and ever more references:
      • "Instead, non-pathological bone resorption, or unknown bone disease, are suggested as causes." (check)
      • "This has also been proposed for the plates of Stegosaurus, although this use alone would not account for the bizarre and extravagant variation seen in different members of the Ceratopsidae. This observation is highly suggestive of what is now believed to be the primary function, display." (check)
      • "The large eyes and shortened features, a hallmark of "cute" baby mammals, also suggest that the parent Triceratops may have cared for its young."
    • "Evidence that display either in courtship or in other social behaviour can be seen in the fact that horned dinosaurs differ markedly in their adornments" Is "display" here a verb or a noun?? (check)
  • External links in the text should be put as notes, possibly content notes.
  • The second paragraph under "Paleobiology" is unreferenced. (check)
  • Two different Sternbergs are specifically mentioned in the article, but in numerous instances, only referred to via their family names. These should all be disambiguated. (check)
  • "The theory of their use in sexual display was first highlighted by Davitashvili"—If it was only "highlighted," then it had been "proposed" before. (check)
• Circeus 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Traditionally, in dinosaur articles, the etymology comes in the introduction. J. Spencer 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. It just struck me that a much better location existed. Also, I took in mind the big debate over references or not in the lead, and name etymologies are a frequent cause of that. I am myself hardly better: my brainchild Verbascum thapsus has the same fault.Circeus 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey, no biggie. Anyway, I think I've gotten to a lot of your smaller comments. What do you think? J. Spencer 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm surprised by your responsiveness, actually. The prose certainly flows better where you worked.Circeus 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • For reference, fellow editors, since I'm knocking off for a while: Here are the concerns I've done nothing with yet.
        • The "Depiction in popular media" section is too short, and has no reference (that there is a "main article" is irrelevant to the section's status). (found ref for Wyoming on gov't site, still looking for SD - added a couple of pop cult appearances. Trick s to avoid it looking listy)(got SD for you, Cas)
        • The "Origins" section suffers from a similar shortness. Additionally, placing evolutionary origins as a subsection of classification history leaves to be desired. (tricky this. especially with cladistics origins and classification are closely linked. I've added a bit how relations relates to ancestry - question is - is it worth putting bit about ceratopsia and pachycephalosauria but I feel that is beyond the scope of the article really)
        • "The large eyes and shortened features, a hallmark of "cute" baby mammals, also suggest that the parent Triceratops may have cared for its young." (needs a reference)(I've looked in the original article and press releases, but I haven't found this yet)
        • External links in the text should be put as notes, possibly content notes.
      • J. Spencer 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through the entire article to fix the issue that the genus is frequently used in the singular, even though it contains more than one species. Even though 90% of dinosaurs are identified for the public only by their genus name, both singular and plural were used in the article.
I fixed a couple of phrasings in the process, but this closer reading brought forth a few extra sentences that could use improvement:

• "These new finds have been vital in illustrating the origins of horned dinosaurs in general in Asia in the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous, and the lineage of Triceratops for at least 10 million years in North America."—too much "in"s! And the sentence just hardly makes sense. What does "the lineage of Triceratops for at least 10 million years in North America" means??(rewritten)
• "However, progress in classification using such techniques has clarified some questions and raised new ones."—there are no "techniques" mentioned earlier that can be readily related to this comment. (deleted as nonsequitor)
• "He had realized that there were horned dinosaurs by the next year and his publication of Ceratops, based on fragmentary skull material from the somewhat older (late Campanian) Judith River Formation of Montana, but he still believed B. alticornis to be a Pliocene mammal."—This is a garden path sentence: the phrasing makes it sound as if "and his publication of Ceratops" introduces a new idea. (rewritten)

Circeus 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I had a look at the highlighted areas. It was a little odd to see the pluralization, but we'll see what the others think. J. Spencer 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with pluralization is partly that the article was already inconsistent in how it made agreement with "triceratops," even taking in account singular uses for the taxonomic meaning.Circeus 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think taking it as singular in the lead is the best bet as we're talking about a singular/group entity, the genus (there's more than one stegosaurus, diplodocus and psittacosaurus too - I think it is the -ops ending that somehow throws people.Cas Liber 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay.I just hope we won't feature an article that says " Although Triceratops is commonly portrayed as a herding animal [...]" or " Triceratops has long been thought to have possibly used its horns and frill in combat with predators such as Tyrannosaurus"... These are the cases that really irked me.Circeus 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now)

1. Remove external links from the main article (don't mix citation style).
2. Please add links in the citations for easy source verification. For articles in journals, they have DOI number that you can use.
3. I found several links to mailing list and one is used as reference. Per WP:RS, mailing list is not a reliable source.
4. "How many species?" heading fails WP:MSH.

— Indon (reply) — 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re 2: they don't always have DOIs, but I agree links should be provided whenever possible.

Re 4: It's used to show that "trike" is used as a nickname for the genus. The link should be to specific posts, though).

Circeus 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Circeus, I edited your posts (moved down) to avoid confusion. Please do not mix other comments with yours as people might confuse who said which.

Re. mailing list. The reason is not to link the mailing list or to a specific post, but source to an e-mail is not reliable. — Indon (reply) — 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant that this was probably the only reasonable way to source that statement. Of course, considering it seems to be in common use only within the dinosaur enthusiasts community, maybe it isn't worth of mention. The "three-horn" nick probably calls for a mention of The Land Before Time.Circeus 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since it's an informal name, how else are we supposed to reference it other than by using a informal source? Also, the overwhelming majority of the articles lack DOIs, as they either predate PDFs or come from journals that don't use them (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology) J. Spencer 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Shoot, I'm getting snippy. It's not a big part of the article, and I always hated that nickname, too. J. Spencer 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My point is, if there are links/DOIs/things that can be provided, they should be. If there are none, there's no reason to gripe, but maybe JSTOR has some of these, for example?Circeus 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking (have found a free PDF to one of the citation, though). Honestly, I'd never even heard of a DOI until this afternoon. J. Spencer 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a snap comment while seeing links added here. Perhaps it's better to make a link only to its title, not the whole citation. You may want to look examples at WP:CITET. — Indon (reply) — 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Had a bash at the links and the pop culture suggestions, and although I come bearing no DOIs, I have added several missing ISBNs. J. Spencer 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:RS is a guideline for determining whether a particular source can be relied upon to be accurate. In the case of the use of the word "Trike" to refer informally to Triceratops (similar to "T-rex"=Tyrannosaurus), the link to the Dinosaur Mailing List archives, which is hosted by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, was used only to show that it is used informally by some; I'm not sure why any link (or cite) was truly necessary, and I see it has been removed. At the same time, I don't think a formal "Reliable source" is required for a statement which clearly states the usage is quite informal; it would be akin to requiring a citation from Webster's in discussing a specific slang term definitely not found in Webster's. If including the mention of the usage of this word is a true barrier to this article's FAC candidacy, by all means, remove it, but then the article will be (slightly) less comprehensive than it was before it was removed. As for the DOIs, J.Spencer isn't the only one who has never heard of them; I hadn't, either. None of the eight earlier Dinosaur Featured Articles required them, so this appears to be something new. C'est la vie, I suppose. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My questions, as a layman reader looking to the source that goes to an email, are: is the informal name really used in the dinosaurus research community or just a slang by some teenagers in a forum? Is it only a trivia? If the name is used informally by the community, why is an email used as a source? Why not newspapers? popular magazines? or a website? And regarding DOI, now you know. :-) — Indon (reply) — 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The dinosaur mailing list is no ordinary email list , but in answer to the last sentence, newspapers, magazines and websites are all cited as sources all over wikipedia. Anyway, it leaves us with an interesting dilemma - leave in a theory posted on a mailing list populated with actual paleontologists or remove an interesting point from the Triceratops page? Cas Liber 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is a special mailing list, so is morph-net, or ica-net, etc., but I wouldn't put a citation to a post there, even if the email came from a professor. I'm sure there are other sources and if there is a theory being developed and discussed over the expert-mailing list, I would wait for a publication for that. So, about your dilemma. If there is a website, even not a famous one, mentioning the fact in question, then it is preferrable. Here is the fact that we are discussing at: The large frill also may have helped to amplify and possibly receive low-frequency sounds,^[40]..., and the [40]th citation states: ^ Anton, in prep. Acoustic amplification by the crest of Triceratops; as referenced in this Dinosaur Mailing List post with ext. link to [1]. Now, wouldn't you wait for the real publicatioin form Mr. Anton first? I'm sure he is an expert, but before a publication came, in preparation or unpublished source is still not reliable, simply because it is still subjected to change. — Indon (reply) — 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah when you put it like that...given it is a pretty minor point in the scheme of things I have removed it. My head is starting to swim in all this text - as at least three of us are trying to address these points. Can you update by striking out which ones you've felt we've dealt with? cheers (gettin' there) Cas Liber 11:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I strike my oppose vote, but not yet supporting it, and also my comments. I still want to see more DOI/http links in the references section to help verifiability, but don't worry about this. I'm going to help you later directly. Let's close this specific discussion first. No need to read this large chunk text again. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that (gasp, more text!) :) Cas Liber 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose due to all the information given above. Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't follow - much of the above is ongoing dialogue and much of it has been addressed. Can you let us know which parts you feel are a barrier currently? cheers Cas Liber 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just for the records, 90% of my lengthy comments have been addressed.Circeus 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Update: As far as I can see, all but one of my concerns have been taken care of, and I have a conditional support if this one can be fixed:
  • "Like all ceratopsid teeth, the roots are split, making them easily-identified fossils."—Does that means that these split roots easily identify them as ceratopsids, or as Triceratops? Because the only distinctive characteristic mentioned is the root, and is shared by all ceratopsids...
• Circeus 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I ended up just striking that line, since it applied to the wider group. By the way, thank you both for your work here, Circeus and Indon! J. Spencer 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mild oppose for now. I must quibble with the prose in the LEAD.

• "Bearing a large bony frill and three horns on its large four-legged body, and somewhat reminiscent of an ancient rhinoceros, Triceratops were some of the most recognizable of all dinosaurs." First, it's clunky with the extra phrase in the middle (and I think you need a "being" before "somewhat"). Are you intending to refer to a specific ancient species of rhinoceros or do you mean it hypothetically? Assuming the latter, I think "suggestive of" is better than "reminiscent of" (I reminisce over what actually existed). "Were some of the most recognizable..."—why the past tense? No human being was around to recognize them in the Cretaceous. "Triceratops fossils are some of the most recognizable..."?

(Dang, was gettin' a bit flowery when I wrote it - you're right about the adjective reminiscent - modern rhino/ancient dinosaur - thus tried " conjuring similarities with the modern rhinoceros", to change it up a little from 'suggestive of' which I must have stuck in a few articles and somewhat understates the resonance these two critters have with each other in alot of folks' minds)Cas Liber 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Conjuring similarities" now makes it a little ornate, but it's logically OK .

• "Their frills and three distinctive facial horns have long inspired debate concerning their functions." Poor syntax; the second use of "their" reads awkwardly. Try: "The function of their frills and three distinctive facial horns has long inspired debate."

(nice one. done.)Cas Liber 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better.

• "Although [the frills and horns] were traditionally viewed as defensive weapons against predators, the latest theories suggest these features were primarily used in display for courtship and dominance, much like modern reindeer or rhinoceros beetles." A comparison has been constructed between the frills and horns of Triceratops and reindeer and rhinoceros beetles themselves.

(added - adornments of - , simplest word I could think of rather than horns/antlers/sicky-outy things....., so subjects conform)Cas Liber 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about the logic more than the prose, I'm not not quite ready to strike. It will mean more words, but you might consider unpacking it completely: "...much like the antlers of reindeer or the horns of rhinoceros beetles." But then I get thinkin' that maybe you shouldn't use the comparison at all: are you sure that, in comparison, you can call the T'tops horns an "adornment," given that the males of both compared-to species use their respective antlers and horns in mating battles? I don't mean to be pedantic, but the LEAD speaks to the body; you need to be pretty clear about what the consensus is on the horns or, with citations, point to a lack of scientific consensus. Intuitively, I'm thinking they must've used those things on each other as more than an "adornment"...

(I see what you mean - I would be happy to use the term adornment for me in bioogical terms but it may mean something a bit different)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to see if I can find more prose concerns in the body. Marskell 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Adornment to me suggests a lack of real utility. Anyhow, fine now.

One last thing on the LEAD: "it is unclear whether the two battled the way they are commonly depicted in movies and children's dinosaur books." I won't ask for a cite that specifcally says the T'tops and T Rex have battled in film or kids' books, but this sort of begs a "See for instance" note. Note two or three places you can think of such an exaggerated battle; if you can't, alter or remove the line. Marskell 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(I mulled over refs in the lead but slotted some exmaples in a para in pop culture. I had the 2 kids' books but lost them many years ago...)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One Million Years B.C. showed a Triceratops and a theropod in battle, but it was a Ceratosaurus, not a Tyrannosaurus. Like Cas, I had several books when I was a kid which depicted the two fighting to the death (both with nearly identical storylines: T. rex goes after Ankylosaurus first, but gets a face full of club and can't pierce the ankylosaurian armor, then goes after Triceratops). I don't think I have either of these books anymore, but I'll check when I get home. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The one with the Ankylosaurus and Triceratops is the How and Why Book of Dinosaurs (with ref; I had it too), and the Giant Golden book had a battle tooCas Liber 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember a giant golden book, but The How and Why Book of Dinosaurs sounds familiar. Ah, yes. This is it. I can't believe we had the same book! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It has almost 50 inline citiations, and its a good article to me. Daniel10 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above. M&NCenarius 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(cont'd)

• "Individual Triceratops have been estimated to reach about..." --> "to have reached about..."
• "However, he was largely ignored with Ostrom,[12] and later David Norman, placing Triceratops within Centrosaurinae.[13]" Who is doing the placing in the last phrase, Ostrom or Norman? Also you need to give Ostrom's full name, or stick with last names only for everyone.

(I was debating about whether to put Ostrom's first name when I originally wrote it in anyway, so easily done. Both were the culprits so I stuck a 'both' in )Cas Liber 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the next sentence the species is "diagnosed". This is usual in a taxonomic context? (yes - moreso in cladistics, it is how one systematically diagnoses that something is X and not Y on he basis of a certain number of criteria. It stumped me the first time I saw it too)Cas Liber 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• "...and that the bones belonged to a particularly large and unusual bison, which he named Bison alticornis.[19][18] He had realized that there were horned dinosaurs by the next year..." The pluperfect isn't wrong, but it jars because the narrative is jumping ahead not back; "there were" might also confuse (I thought it was a typo for "these were"). Use simple past: "By the next year he realized that horned dinosaur fossils existed..."

Still a bit more left to read. Marskell 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One last kick at the can:

• "Although it was one of the last ceratopsians to appear before the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, Triceratops was not the only one present at the end of the Cretaceous." Drop "Although" and lop off the redundancy at the end; "one of the last" already tells the reader a few others were about.
• "To appear in the last ten years". Avoid this sort of wording—when the ten years are up it will be incorrect. --> "to appear since 1995" or something.

Not much left to pick at! This is a great article and I will now support. Marskell 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at those two. The year reference ended up awkward, and I don't think it was too pertinant, so I cut it. J. Spencer 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I support also. — Indon (reply) — 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent read. Wiki-newbie 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - the article is really excellent and is comprehensive; however, I think you can do better on the "Triceratops in popular culture" bit. I know it's a leadoff onto another article, but I think it would be better if you maybe discussed how the triceratops is portrayed in pop culture as opposed to the scientific hypotheses about how it lived. The section as it is at present is little more than a list of media in which triceratops are portrayed; I'd like to see something more along the lines of what you present in your lead paragraph, about its interaction with Tyrannosaurus, etc. as portrayed in pop culture - not just mentions of it being in books, but how and why it is done that way. Even just a couple of sentences would be good. I don't think that paragraph is up to scratch compared with the rest of the article. Sorry to be harsh, but it's a great article otherwise and that bit just spoils it. JROBBO 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a problem in that it might be extremely difficult to rewritethesection with that outlook without violating WP:NOR.Circeus 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • The other option is to cut it. It's the on-going sore point with In pop. cult. sections—they're either random lists or OR. Marskell 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Good point Circeus - it probably will be all OR. Perhaps add a sentence or two more about the interaction with Tyrannosaurus in popular culture to match what has been said in the intro, and then I will be happy. I think that's reasonable. JROBBO 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The pop culture section currently states: Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book.[47][48] A memorable but anachronistic battle with Ceratosaurus substituting for T. rex is featured in the 1966 movie One Million Years B.C.. Due to all the editing, I'm not sure if this was all here before your objection or was added in response to your objection. Is this enough, or do you think more weight should be given to these (admittedly anachronistic) battles? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Object Please define "Wit time". Grammar: "...there was only one species-......."(emphasis added), "...more erect horns..." "...a single species..."(emphasis added) "this gives a total of 432 to 800 teeth..." (the use of the word total is misleading.) Syntax: ...the distinctive skull of T. (now tentatively Diceratops) hatcheri ..." "...sites preserving dozens or hundreds..." (or is not appropriate for such a big leap) "...ferns in fern prairies..." (unnecessary words,where do we expect to get a large amount of ferns?) --RebSkii 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

--RebSkii 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(I note you've struck out all your objections bar one. thanks for that. Regarding "horns more erect" I'm not sure what you mean. I thought, as erect is a fairly common English word not restricted to science, that it was self-explanatory, especially as the next clause describes "horns more forward-facing". A link to erect is, erm, probably not the most appropriate one and I feel that writing "straight up" sounds too colloquial and "more vertical", though accurate in a way is cumbersome in others. Do you have a suggestion here? cheers Cas Liber 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

"Wit" is a common representation of "with" (used in Philly amongst other places); this and "only one" are fixed. Marskell 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, are you objecting to the singular use of the word "species"? According to Dictionary.com, "Specie" is a "nonstandard form"; "one species" is correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. According to the Dinosaur article: Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and modern birds.. This article should mention this fact about Triceratops and expand it a little more. CG 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(CG, I've added a short note on Triceratops position in phylogenetics in the classification section - tricky as it more pertains to classification as a whole rather than much to do with Triceratops per se. Cas Liber 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose - Stegosaurus was great, Diplodocus somewhat less, but Triceratops is even less refined. For such a big part of dinosaur study, this creature has a smallish article which could easily be expanded. For example, the way Triceratops walked. 1) this should have its own section in Paleobiology. 2) more info should be placed on it as this was a bigger issue for paleontologists than the small mention in "description" alludes to. There were numerous studies into the way Triceratops walked, yet so little information. This leads me to ponder what else has less information than could be gathered? As I said, big subject, small article to what it could potentially be. I've agreed with all your other nominations Cas, but this one falls short in my eyes. It seems to me you are in too big a hurry to nominate as many dino articles as you can. I've worked on many dinosaur articles, & I think the article could be better. Great work, but please try & expand the article rather than ignore my oppose since you easily have numbers to pass this article... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought on expanding the information on posture, as really the only point to point out is that the bony structure of the joints shows it must have had a sprawling gait but the tracks disagree - however hiving this off into a separate section under Paleobiology causes problems with style and we got some criticism in Stegosaurus for too many small subheadings, which we then consolidated into Description. Thus I am in two minds what to do here. As far as your other points, the article stands at 34.4 kB (5005 words), which is larger than Diplodocus and close to Stegosaurus in size. I myself have made more edits on this one than on Diplodocus and only 12 less than Stegosaurus. I will go and have a look at some posture material to see if/how it can be incorporated into the article, and wait to see waht others think. This aside, general comments like ..."falls short"...I can't see this as particularly helpful. If you have some other specific elements you feel have been left out then please list them. cheers. Cas Liber 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: None of the books I have give particular attention to the stance/gait of Triceratops (two don't even mention it), and I feel like adding an entire section on gait just for the sake of making the article longer somehow rings hollow. It is not recommended to "pad out" an article just to make it longer; this article is of comparable length to the other dinosaur articles, and there's nothing at the FAC criteria page which indicates each Featured Article must be longer than the one before it. I think you have some points, Spawn Man, but I don't feel any of your comments are actually objectionable per the FAC criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From the above two comments, It looks as if you want to expand on it because it is an area where there are interrogations/investigations, not because there is material that can be included. That is unfortunately outside the scope of Wikipedia.

And I think Firsfron actually means that your comment are not "actionable."Circeus 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. :) Gah! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said make a new section about the gait, but instead move the information to the opening section of Paleobiology as it isn't broad enough to be included in Description. Therefore, it would better suit being moved to paleobiology.

I know this whole gang up thing. I think my objections are extremely actionable. By no means am I suggestion adding drivel to the article, but saying that "There's no problem here & I've done lots of edits here" is only being defensive. Being defensive & shielding out the easiest request of all (expand), is only going to get the article no where. I'm not a paleontologist, but I know that there's more that can be palced on this subject... Will make a more "objectional" respinse soon... Spawn Man 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through briefly & picked out this phrase also. "Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book." Although it is referenced, you have to admit, it is a bit generalistic. So all T. rex books have at least 2 triceratops battling at the end of it? Replace it with something like, Triceratops is a common enemy of T. rex in children's books - & even then it seems unencyclopedic... Plus the refs are 2 children's books, not the many hundreds with these 2 dinosaurs in them & hardly the number needed to make such a generalistic comment such as this... Spawn Man 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, just checked in and gotta rush out. I know of a few other books too and will put them in if it makes the case more compelling. It is generalistic because it is true. Will also have a go at tweaking sentence later.Cas Liber 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.