Talk:Thescelosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Thescelosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Dinosaurs 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] GA nomination on hold

This article is well-written, but I have a few suggestions that should be fixed before I pass it as GA:

  • Fix the many redirects and link repair for: fauna, meters, paleontologists, Niobrara County, USA, bipedal, Charles M. Sternberg, subfamily, pachycephalosaurid, hindlimbs, Iguanodontidae, polyphyletic, Iguanodontia, omnivorous, browsed, chewing, teeth, palpebrals, ossified, rib cage, ribs, sex (to gender), habitat, Alfred Sherwood Romer, pelvic, CT imagery, ectothermy, ceratopsids, hadrosaurs, ankylosaur, pachycephalosaurs, theropods, math, and agility.
  • In the intro, switch "an herbivore" to "a herbivore" in "It is regarded as a specialized hypsilophodont and an herbivore."
  • In the Temporal and geographic range section don't abbreviate the 3 m, simply put 3 meters.

These are really basic to fix, and I'll put this article on hold until they are fixed. Let me know on my talk page when they are fixed or if you have any other questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

That was very quick, good job. I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Be sure to keep the article at its same quality, and include all new information with proper sources and citation. Consider expanding the information in the Miscellaneous section, perhaps detailing the findings of the math problem or find some other info pertaining to the subject to include. --Nehrams2020 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll see what else I can find. It hasn't been the most popular dinosaur in pop culture, unfortunately. J. Spencer 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Woo, good work! Dinoguy2 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list (?)

Wow, this article looks so good it is hard to figure what it needs. I figure making the lead into two paras with the second maybe expanding a little on the heart thing is probably the best bet. Also, all other dino FAs have a Description section after the lead.....seems a shame to split it up though cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran together a Description/Paleobiology section, a large chunk of which could be turned into a Description section. As for anything to add, we could scan Google again. Thescie (since it'll need a cute nickname, too :) ) has been used as a supporting dinosaur in dino books fairly regularly even before the heart, probably because there was decent material for it, and because it was different from your bog-standard hypsilophodont. J. Spencer 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I redid the running order to fit the FAs. One thing I just remembered, that would be useful, is a reference to a book by Dale Russell from the 80s, where he represented this dinosaur as living near rivers like a hippo, if I recall correctly. It's "An Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America", which I should really pick up one of these days, but I don't have it. Maybe someone owns it, or has it at a library near them? (it's either this book, or the Czerkas book from about the same time, but I'm almost certain it's Russell's). J. Spencer 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I blued the formation links cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thescelosaurus (5 votes) wins

Nominated February 17th, 2007;

Support:

  1. Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. M&NCenarius 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. ArthurWeasley 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Had a load of work (thanks Justin!), unusual and refreshing to see a less-known dino as FA. Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Already a GA. Would be nice to have it pushed to a FA status as a tribute to Justin's impressive work! ArthurWeasley 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Already one of the longest dinosaur articles, it would probably need very little work to get up to the next level. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated To-do list...(to be sure to be sure..........)

OK folks, moving closer.....

  • I can't help feeling the Lead should be a teeny bit meatier.
  • Para 3 of Discovery & Species could be seen as a bit jargony and could do with a bit of a copyedit.
  • Ummm............what else?

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually leave the lead for last, anyway. Any specific turns of phrase in that Para 3 that are raising warning flags? J. Spencer 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. We've had good luck with veteran outside editors with the last few FAs, but I don't want to drag in the same people every time. Any ideas for a good third party? J. Spencer 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise. I haven't had time to do much work on anything the past few days. I agree asking the same people for reviews should be avoided, even if they have been gracious enough to volunteer their time to review articles. I wonder if a peer review might be helpful here. We stopped doing them for a while because the results of the peer review were so uneven (several articles received relatively few comments), but perhaps things have changed in the last six months or so. If you'd rather not do the PR, I'm pretty sure we could find another third party, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, although now that I think about it, I'd like to wait a few days, as I've got the Russell book on ILL, and hope to get it next week, hopefully to add the last tidbits.J. Spencer 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with PR being uneven. So shall I ask a couple of people or do you want to run with PR? I'm easy. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We would probably get better results with a volunteer or two than PR. I just have a hard time with the whole concept of telling people what to do as opposed to doing it myself. That's why I don't do reviews myself; for some reason I feel like I'm a jerk to tell someone to fix their grammar, but not if I fix it for them. Must be a Minnesotan thing: if you've got a problem with something, don't complain about it, but fix it :) . Anyway, the question of which way to go looks like it boils down to time; having looked over PR, we'd probably get better results if we asked someone, unless we wanted to wait a couple of weeks. J. Spencer 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - OK then, I'll drop a note on a couple of editors' pages forthwith...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Got snowed under at work today and completely sidelined after leaving a request on one good copyeditors page who has kindly given some preliminary feedback on my talk page. He will have another look later. I am musing on who else to leave a note on....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just left a note on Marskell's talk page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done? (with the information)

Just added the Russell stuff, so I think I've got everything in there that would be pertinent and useful that I've ever heard of. J. Spencer 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, ball's in your court...wanna go for it ;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-referencing

I was asked to have a peek at this one, and my first concern regards over-referencing. Not just each sentence, but each clause is often cited. Where two different cites are used in one sentence, can one be chosen? Can double references be reduced to only those points that are potentially controversial or startling? Marskell 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)