Talk:Tyrannosauroidea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

	Tyrannosauroidea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

I understand that in the original version it was tried to give a cladogram by use of indentation; but this only works when there are clade names to be subdivided by each indentation. These simply don't exist (yet).--MWAK 11:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] great job!

Good work Sheepy. I could only find one typo. Otherwise great writing. If Circeus gives it a once over I'd say send it to FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to add a paleobiology section and a cladogram before sending it to FAC, if we do that. Having Circeus look it over sounds like a great idea too... what about user:Unimaginative Username who copyedited a couple of other articles recently? Sheep81 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Good to spread the work around...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll run through this, but of course it looks awesome, Sheep. UI is a very thorough copyeditor who doesn't know a great deal about dinosaurs (which is what we need). He asks a lot of questions and he's very patient with us (we? whatever...) grubby mud-English users. He picks articles apart and can spot a split infinitive at fifty paces. I highly recommend him, if he's up to working with us again. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

.......I wonder if Debivort would do a diagram like the cool one for Hadrosaurs...thought it may be good for highlighting the feathery ones...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article! Just a few small comments:

1. The diagrams and images around the "Distribution" section are very cluttered. Could this be cleaned up?
2. "Some fossils currently referred to Stokesosaurus may instead belong to Aviatyrannis, which would not be surprising given the great similarities in the dinosaur faunas of Portugal and North America during this time." (Distribution) I'm not sure what it is, but something about this sentence just doesn't seem encyclopedic, and it revolves around the tone of the "which would not be surprising" part. Maybe it sounds a bit ORish? I can't tell, but it REALLY stands out given the professional and scientific tone of the rest of the article and is very distracting.
3. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must cover every major point/heading made in the body of the article. Currently, there is nothing on one of the subsections of "Paleobiology" (head crests) and not enough on the other, given its prominence in the article ("Feathers"; the one sentence about it in the lead sticks out like a sore thumb and requires some context).
4. "Unpublished research suggests that some genera currently identified as compsognathids may in fact be basal tyrannosauroids as well." (Phylogeny) First of all, the fact that it is unpublished research suggests that this statement violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Secondly, it is cited by a blog and, while it seems as if the person is notable in their field, the combination of unpublished work and a potentially unreliable source (I say this not to disparage the individual, but merely to note that he could post anything he wanted on his blog without having to get it scrutinized scientifically) means that this sentence needs to go if it cannot be better sourced (and since it's unpublished, it would be surprising if it could)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am sending my pet tyrannosaurus out to eat Jimmy Wales putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Moved some pictures around to spread them out a bit. Any better or did I just move the clutter from one place to another?

2) You're right, removed that bit from the sentence altogether. I trust it still holds together?

3) Drew out the lead a bit, added a sentence to cover the missing section.

4) Struck that sentence entirely, we can add it back if and when Darren ever publishes that stuff.

Thanks for taking the time to review our work! Please let us know if there are further changes necessary. Sheep81 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I barely had time to use the restroom. Everything looks excellent now, definitely a Good Article and more! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 08:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do obsess about our little corner of Wikipedia. :) Thank you for the review! Sheep81 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that bothers me about this article: sometimes it focusses on the Tyrannosauridea as a whole, but other times it seems to treat only the basal (non-Tyrannosauridae) members. The article should either consistently treat the group as a whole or treat only the basal members.

It would also be nice to have a distribution map set on a Pangaea, instead of just the modern continental distribution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)