Talk:Sue (dinosaur)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
|||
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
An entry from Sue (dinosaur) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 17, 2007. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] Quality
This article could be improved by more encyclopedic writing. If anyone would like to rewrite parts of it, that would be great.--MatthewLiberal 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well cut it some slack it's a brand new article. It does need work though—very nice start nonetheless. Interesting subject. Aaron Bowen 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting subject, but it is written like a High School essay. Still, considering it's a new article, it has more sources than most. 24.205.34.217 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
This article needs to be merged with FMNH PR2081 which is about the same fossil.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. That article didn't contain anything except the specimen ID that wasn't in this article. SchmuckyTheCat 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - makes no sense to have two articles on the same specimen. I started the FMNH PR2081 article as part of a series that will cover all Tyrannosaur specimens. As long as we can keep the category link to Collection of the Field Museum I have no problem with it Mistyschism 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sue Source
Here is a link to a source from Neil and Peter Larson on the Black Hills Institute Website - it gives some exact dates - such as when the FBI seized the fossil from the Institute. The majority of the articl is POV but it has some facts. Currently I am working on updating Hill City, South Dakota and have included a part about Sue in the History section. I only used the link I just posted as the source. If someone here could take a look at the Hill City page - that would be most helpful. Lmielke359 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge (new)
The merge-to article does not exist yet because it's just been proposed, to hold several separate articles on tyrannosaur specimens. The (Discuss) link should have taken you to the WikiProject Dinosaurs discussion on the topic. J. Spencer 04:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cast?
Do you think it would be possible to mention the fact that there was a complete cast made of Sue, which is currently touring the country? It just came into my town about a week ago, fascinating thing. 74.242.15.223 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commentary moved from article
I removed the following from the article because it's much more appropriate to a talk page. J. Spencer (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A clarification of this statement would be useful. While legal title to a trust's corpus does technically reside in the trustee, saying that the trustee "owns" the property in question is highly misleading. It would be better to say that the property "belonged" to the trust or, better yet, to its beneficiaries. svanslyck 2008-06-07
