Talk:Deinocheirus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll notify co-nominator IJReid! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

rather than say " is a genus of large ornithomimosaurian dinosaur", how about " is a genus of large ostrich dinosaur" - no loss of accuracy and much more accessible.

Alright, though it may become a problem if changed in the rest of the article, as we have to distinguish between ornithomimidae and ornithomimosauria, which can both be referred to this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this only needs to be used in the lead, as it is inviting to laymen and is slightly summarized from its full form. IJReid ^discuss 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps even have ornithomimisaurian in parenthesis after the term? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts were change in lead only as more clarity needed elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

....and a few other bones of this animal were first discovered... --> "of this animal" redundant.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

.. and Deinocheirus was long thought of as an enigmatic dinosaur. - clunky. How about, "its nature remained a mystery" or something along those lines.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The tail ended in pygostyle-like vertebrae, which indicates the presence of a fan of feathers. - "indicate" as vertebrae is plural?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nature (journal) should be italicised?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

which was to include the supposedly related genera Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus - I'd add a footnote here (using the efn|1= format) to clarify current thoughts on their (distant) relationship

Added a bit to the article, since it turns out it actually had a bit of support subsequently, and was not just a dead end... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Be good if one of the sources used the term convergent evolution, which could be slotted in, but no bother if not....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, but the arms aren't really that similar, they're just big, which was apparently enough to group them together back then... The hands and claws are very different. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

aaah ok - good point - nix that then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Map template file to be noted on File:Map mn umnugobi aimag.png?

I think it's this[1], by the same author? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yeah looks like it - just worth noting (someone makes me do it for all mine...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Linked it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Spell out file source on File:Deinocheirus mirificus forelimb.png (not just link)

Done. IJReid ^discuss 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant write out citation of this article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it now. IJReid ^discuss 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - tight and well-written article. I think it is within striking distance of FA. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Casliber! I've submitted this for copyedit, but it will probably take a couple months before it reaches the top of the list. Do you think it could be nominated without copyedit? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)