| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saurolophus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Saurolophus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 25, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that though many specimens of Saurolophus angustirostris have been found, it was not clearly differentiated as a separate species from Saurolophus osborni until 2011? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Assessment
editThis article is well written, appropriately referenced, reasonably broad but not trivial, NPOV, stable, and uses images correctly. That covers every one of the good article criteria. Since I can see no obvious differences with the criteria, I am going to add this article to the GA list. Good job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
edit- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Saurolophus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA Sweeps: Pass
editAs part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoration in PLOS paper
editI was about to add it here, but is it just me or are the crest shapes wrong? http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0031295&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0031295.g013 FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've never seen the crest restored as down-curved before. How completely preserved are the crests in S. angustirostris? MMartyniuk (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the Asian species is more well known than the American one, from reading the paper, and the outline restoration only shos the "regular" shape.[1] So I have no idea what's going on. Maybe it's supposed to be a keratinous extension or soemthing... In any case, it seems that this article's restoration might be slightly wrong skin-wise. It also seems that the eye is placed a bit too far from the crest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would definitely be nice to use the PLoS restoration. Maybe we could simply Photoshop the normal crest onto the other species. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made this edit, based on the differences in crest and beak seen in the images in this article: http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9990/journalpone0031ee295g01.png For some reason, the beak shape of both seemed way too deep as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would definitely be nice to use the PLoS restoration. Maybe we could simply Photoshop the normal crest onto the other species. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the Asian species is more well known than the American one, from reading the paper, and the outline restoration only shos the "regular" shape.[1] So I have no idea what's going on. Maybe it's supposed to be a keratinous extension or soemthing... In any case, it seems that this article's restoration might be slightly wrong skin-wise. It also seems that the eye is placed a bit too far from the crest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
restoration
editI guess mine is no longer worth including? de Bivort 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- See discussion above. It is inaccurate according to new research (scalation, stripes, eye position), but you could just change it accordingly and it should be added again. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)