Talk:Dromaeosauroides/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) As a taxon only known from two teeth I find that the article almost meets good article criteria. The only this preventing it from being a good article are:

Thanks forthe review! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• In Paleoecology - represents the lagoon, wouldn't it be a lagoon?

It was because the lagoon had already been mentioned before, but changed it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also - The bivalve Neimiodon is found in abundance below (Nemiodon beds), ... It seems wrong, could just be how I read it.

Which part seems wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be "below it in the Nemiodon beds, ..." or at least "below it (the Nemiodon beds)". Iainstein (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: "in the sediments below (Neomiodon Bed)"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. Iainstein (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• In Classification - members of the Dromaeosauridea subfamily It should be "Dromaeosauridea family" or "Dromaeosaurinae subfamily".

Fixed to family. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are also medium to large size spaces of information without refs. The only one that is important to the overall outcome of the article is in Discovery and naming. It starts with One of these sites is "Carl Nielsen's sandpit" in the Robbedale valley (not to be confused with the Robbedale Formation, where no vertebrate fossils have been found). ...

If there is a large paragraph with a ref in the very end, that's the ref for the whole part. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, when i checked them I must have checked the wrong ref or thought that it was about the filming. Iainstein (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• One thing that does not really disturb the quality of the article but that should be mentioned nonetheless is about the taxobox. Shouldn't it be in Dromaeosaurinae and in it necessary to have Deinonychosauria? After all the authors placed it in Dromaeosaurinae and no-one has really disagreed, and Deinonychosauria is possibly a synonym of Dromaeosauridae. Iainstein (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too, trouble is,I can't figure out the automatic taxobox. If you can, feel free to put it in. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Iainstein (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, do you want Dromaeosauroidea to show? And what about Eudromaeosauria? Iainstein (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, since Dromaeosauroidea is mentioned a lot in the article. Not sure about Eudromaeosauria though. Some of the other clades seem a bit arbitrary? Why no Dinosauria? Why no Theropoda? And why Avemetatarsalia? Perhaps Dinoguy knows, he seems to have structured the original taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The hierarchy was set up with birds in mind, really, since too many force-displayed taxa (which seemed rather arbitrary anyway) were breaking deeply nested taxoboxes. Avemetatarsalia seemed a good choice for navigational purposes to show how it relates to other sauropsids. We could try force-displaying Dinosauria and Theropoda if it looks like it will stop messing up enantiornithine taxoboxes, but that might be a job for somebody with better programming skill. I'd avoid displaying Dromaeosauroidea as that taxon, while technically it has been coined and defined, is almost never used and is currently redundant with Dromaeosauridae (as is, probably, Deinonychosauria). EDIT: Ok I think I fixed Dinosauria and Theorpoda to always display without breaking anything. Sauropsida has been set to always display the whole time but seems to only work on certain articles, not sure why... MMartyniuk (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks nice, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's because Dinosauria is a clade, Theropoda a suborder and Avemetetarsalia is a (?) . The taxobox shows all "important" ranks, Phylum, Class, Order (Saurischia) and Family (Dromaeosauridae). Iainstein (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You're getting a hang of the Wiki coding stuff! Next up, you should almost start writing full articles, isn't that hard, as long as you've got the right sources. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the articles I've created? Iainstein (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I'm thinking more that you could take articles you like to GA or FA if you wanted. Getting sources is pretty easy, even if you don't have access yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well after this review I think I'll try to get the articles I've created or at least expanded to be as large as I can and possibly to G or FA. How do you nominate an article? Iainstein (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should the taxobox have a binomial also? Iainstein (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Type Species displaying the binomial is enough, no? I transcluded Avemetatarsalia straight to Sauropsida eliminating the too many taxa issue, so it's now displaying Sauropsida and Animalia correctly. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Iainstein (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Other than those few I have found nothing wrong. I will read it again to find any other things that could prevent it from becoming a GA or cross out comments that have been solved or were read wrong. Iainstein (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read it again and found nothing wrong. Good job on making an article about two teeth. Iainstein (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, there was a lot of technical information in the papers, so took quite some time to have it make sense for laypeople... FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And feel free to add more suggestions until the second opinion arrives. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Very cool to see further dinosaur articles heading for GA. I've read the article carefully, and found neither a single issue nor lacking information. Just want to thank you for this great article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)