Talk:Pterosaur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

A primarily excellent article making use of good, scholarly sources and clearly written. Which makes certain sections that have numerous unreferenced statements and slightly less than clear wording stand out all the more. Some work is required to fulfill the GA criteria:

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and  Not done

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Done

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;  Done

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and  Not done

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 Done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 Done
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 Done

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and  Not done

The image of the Rhamphorynchus, found here has a tag that "should not be used".

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Done

---

Comments:

The paragraphs in the lede that discuss the terms used to describe pterosaurs; does this content appear in the main body of the article? There cannot be any signficant information that appears only in the lede.

Additionally, the lede should not really contain references (since any statements must appear in the main body and would be referenced there); do the references 1-4 (and also 5-8 to an extent) appear here because the information is not present elsewhere; if not for this reason, why do they appear?

Well written:

A few problems I've found regarding clarity and wording:

• The third paragraph of the lede; why is this separate from the previous paragraph? They both discuss incorrect terms that people use to describe Pterosaurs.
• Lede: "This usage is discouraged." By whom? I would assume the scientific community.
• In popular culture: "the depiction of dinosaurs in popular media has changed radically" - has it though; aren't some depictions of dinosaurs still outdated? And "as long as their cousins" - is cousins an accurate term here, or simply an easy way to word their connection? And "Pterosaurs were first used in fiction" - 'featured' more appropriate? "1925 film adaptation" - can this be linked?

Factually accurate and verifiable:

Several instances of "citation needed" already identified. Additionally:

• History of discovery

• [...] second paragraph: Reference is incorrectly formatted.
• [...] third paragraph: applied fact template to statements that require referencing.

• Evolution and extinction

• Classification: Several statements requiring references.
• Well-known genera: Unsure whether each entry requires a reference. Would this be possible, just to cover things?

• In popular culture

• "The number and diversity of pterosaurs in the popular consciousness is also not as high as it has been historically for dinosaurs."
• Third paragraph requires several references for unverified statements, particularly the use of David Hone without acknowledgement of sources.

Three references are incorrectly formatted or lack certain parameters.

• Ref 29
• Ref 30
• Ref 34

Dablinks:

Pterosaur links to 1 disambiguation page (fix links).

Chris Bennett

Pterosaur links to 1 redirect which point back.

Pycnofibres (redirect page)

Pterosaur#Pycnofibres

- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• As a note, I'm currently working on trying to fix these issues. Thank you! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I finished fixing the article with your comments above, and I'm interested in what you think. Thanks! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• You've addressed the majority of the points I've raised, and the article is more solid thanks to this. Although a few of the minor points on wording haven't been discussed or changed, this doesn't prevent a promotion to GA.

Result: Passed. - MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)