Talk:Garudimimus/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jens Lallensack in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Great to see this one getting expanded.
- a genus of ornithomimosaur dinosaurs – we usually have "dinosaurs" in singular here. This is also quite a tongue-twister; maybe just "is a genus of ornithomimosaur" is enough.
- found in 1981 by a Soviet-Mongolian expedition on the Bayan Shireh Formation – "in" instead of "on"
- giving naming to the type species Garudimimus brevipes – "giving naming", I am really not sure about this grammar, but I'm also not a native speaker. Maybe just "; the only species is Garudimimus brevipes."
- Multiple misinterpretations – this does not meet the WP:NPOV. Especially when we don't have a secondary source that states they are "misinterpretations". We cannot assume that the most recent interpretation is the correct one. Please check for such issues in the remainder of the article also, it would speed up the review.
- Changed to "Several interpretations". PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- "corrected" is the next instance of the same problem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Changed to "Several interpretations". PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Findings of extensive undescribed ornithomimosaur remains – "Finding" means "result", right? I think you can just remove "Findings of" without loosing anything.
- It was meant to indicate "fossil findings", but I get the point. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- additional specimens for the genus – "of" the genus
- Garudimimus were medium-sized ornithomimosaurs – the convention is to put them in singular, since we are talking about "the genus".
- which is only known from the holotype. – repetition
- Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- They were ornithomimosaurs with a mix of basal and derived features; unlike primitive ornithomimosaurs, both upper and lower jaws were edentulous (toothless)—a trait that is often reported in more derived ornithomimids. – Punctuation (";" followed by a "–") is not ideal here, I suggest to replace the "–" with a simple ",".
- However, Garudimimus were not very cursorial animals as they had relatively short and stocky hindlimbs – You expect that the readers know that ornithomimids were cursorial. They won't.
- Removed as it was repetitive with the last lines.PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- heavy feet – what does "heavy" mean, robust?
- Oof my bad, apparently this was written prior to the expansion and I forgot to change it. Probably it doesn't have a significant value.
- than that of others of the group – I guess you mean "that of other genera" and not "that of other skulls" as is currently implied.
- this primitive taxon of Ornithomimosauria – no reason to formulate it in such a complicated way; better just "this primitive ornithomimosaurian", or stick with the word "genus". Don't use more technical terms when this can be avoided.
- Ornithomimosauria is linked twice in the lead.
- "holotype" – As the lead should be as accessible as possible, with as few technical terms as possible, think about replacing "holotype" with "only specimen".
- has shown that this horn was simply the distorted left prefrontal bone. – "that this structure" or something; because it is not a horn.
- Another early mistake was the metatarsal reconstructed with an arctometatarsalian condition – "metatarsus"
- a primitive ornithomimosaurian taxon with its own family, the Garudimimidae. – "a primitive ornithomimosaurian within its own family" is maybe better.
- However, with the description of new specimens of Deinocheirus in 2014, it was found that this genus was the sister taxon of Garudimimus – "it was found that the latter", otherwise it is confusing to read.
- Like other members of the group – not clear which group is meant.
- Now stated with Ornithomimosauria. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeolitic: This was only the lead. I think the article needs some significant work to get it to GA niveau. How do we continue? First, it would help if you could go to the rest of the article first, trying to correct issues similar to those I listed above. But there are many many small issues. We might be quicker if we fail this nomination for now and you submit the article to the Paleo Peer Review, because there more people can contribute. If you prefer to leave the nomination open, I will continue section by section, and possibly try to call others in for help, but it would be a slow process. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking your time on the lead. If the consensus is about singular, then I'll be fixing the plural across the article. However, I would like to know if there's a bigger discussion about this issue/topic. If it's better this way, I guess that is more appropriate to move the article to Paleo Peer Review and fail the nomination for now. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can't remember any discussion, but you can see in other articles, for example the neighbour Deinocheirus, which is a FA, that singular is used. Even if both ways are possible, it is always better to have a uniform style across our article. This article seems to be the only one (at least among the GA's and FA's) that uses plural. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the Peer Review: This is not a quick and easy review to do. Moving it to Peer Review first would help me as a reviewer a lot, because others can jump in to help. I think you would profit as well, because the spectrum of comments would be broader. But it remains your decision! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given that, the best move here is to take the article onto the PeerReview in order to correct issues. Let's fail the nomination for now (sorry for the late response). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- All right, failed now, lets continue at the Paleo Review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given that, the best move here is to take the article onto the PeerReview in order to correct issues. Let's fail the nomination for now (sorry for the late response). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking your time on the lead. If the consensus is about singular, then I'll be fixing the plural across the article. However, I would like to know if there's a bigger discussion about this issue/topic. If it's better this way, I guess that is more appropriate to move the article to Paleo Peer Review and fail the nomination for now. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)