Talk:Thescelosaurus

GA nomination on hold

This article is well-written, but I have a few suggestions that should be fixed before I pass it as GA:

• Fix the many redirects and link repair for: fauna, meters, paleontologists, Niobrara County, USA, bipedal, Charles M. Sternberg, subfamily, pachycephalosaurid, hindlimbs, Iguanodontidae, polyphyletic, Iguanodontia, omnivorous, browsed, chewing, teeth, palpebrals, ossified, rib cage, ribs, sex (to gender), habitat, Alfred Sherwood Romer, pelvic, CT imagery, ectothermy, ceratopsids, hadrosaurs, ankylosaur, pachycephalosaurs, theropods, math, and agility.
• In the intro, switch "an herbivore" to "a herbivore" in "It is regarded as a specialized hypsilophodont and an herbivore."
• In the Temporal and geographic range section don't abbreviate the 3 m, simply put 3 meters.

These are really basic to fix, and I'll put this article on hold until they are fixed. Let me know on my talk page when they are fixed or if you have any other questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

That was very quick, good job. I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Be sure to keep the article at its same quality, and include all new information with proper sources and citation. Consider expanding the information in the Miscellaneous section, perhaps detailing the findings of the math problem or find some other info pertaining to the subject to include. --Nehrams2020 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll see what else I can find. It hasn't been the most popular dinosaur in pop culture, unfortunately. J. Spencer 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Woo, good work! Dinoguy2 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To-do list (?)

Wow, this article looks so good it is hard to figure what it needs. I figure making the lead into two paras with the second maybe expanding a little on the heart thing is probably the best bet. Also, all other dino FAs have a Description section after the lead.....seems a shame to split it up though cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran together a Description/Paleobiology section, a large chunk of which could be turned into a Description section. As for anything to add, we could scan Google again. Thescie (since it'll need a cute nickname, too :) ) has been used as a supporting dinosaur in dino books fairly regularly even before the heart, probably because there was decent material for it, and because it was different from your bog-standard hypsilophodont. J. Spencer 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I redid the running order to fit the FAs. One thing I just remembered, that would be useful, is a reference to a book by Dale Russell from the 80s, where he represented this dinosaur as living near rivers like a hippo, if I recall correctly. It's "An Odyssey in Time: The Dinosaurs of North America", which I should really pick up one of these days, but I don't have it. Maybe someone owns it, or has it at a library near them? (it's either this book, or the Czerkas book from about the same time, but I'm almost certain it's Russell's). J. Spencer 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I blued the formation links cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I think that Thescelosaurus is a good dinosaur, I mean that it is very interesting.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus (5 votes) wins

Nominated February 17th, 2007;

Support:

1. Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. M&NCenarius 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3. ArthurWeasley 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Had a load of work (thanks Justin!), unusual and refreshing to see a less-known dino as FA. Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Already a GA. Would be nice to have it pushed to a FA status as a tribute to Justin's impressive work! ArthurWeasley 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Already one of the longest dinosaur articles, it would probably need very little work to get up to the next level. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Updated To-do list...(to be sure to be sure..........)

OK folks, moving closer.....

• I can't help feeling the Lead should be a teeny bit meatier.
• Para 3 of Discovery & Species could be seen as a bit jargony and could do with a bit of a copyedit.
• Ummm............what else?

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually leave the lead for last, anyway. Any specific turns of phrase in that Para 3 that are raising warning flags? J. Spencer 04:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. We've had good luck with veteran outside editors with the last few FAs, but I don't want to drag in the same people every time. Any ideas for a good third party? J. Spencer 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise. I haven't had time to do much work on anything the past few days. I agree asking the same people for reviews should be avoided, even if they have been gracious enough to volunteer their time to review articles. I wonder if a peer review might be helpful here. We stopped doing them for a while because the results of the peer review were so uneven (several articles received relatively few comments), but perhaps things have changed in the last six months or so. If you'd rather not do the PR, I'm pretty sure we could find another third party, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, although now that I think about it, I'd like to wait a few days, as I've got the Russell book on ILL, and hope to get it next week, hopefully to add the last tidbits.J. Spencer 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with PR being uneven. So shall I ask a couple of people or do you want to run with PR? I'm easy. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We would probably get better results with a volunteer or two than PR. I just have a hard time with the whole concept of telling people what to do as opposed to doing it myself. That's why I don't do reviews myself; for some reason I feel like I'm a jerk to tell someone to fix their grammar, but not if I fix it for them. Must be a Minnesotan thing: if you've got a problem with something, don't complain about it, but fix it :) . Anyway, the question of which way to go looks like it boils down to time; having looked over PR, we'd probably get better results if we asked someone, unless we wanted to wait a couple of weeks. J. Spencer 15:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - OK then, I'll drop a note on a couple of editors' pages forthwith...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Got snowed under at work today and completely sidelined after leaving a request on one good copyeditors page who has kindly given some preliminary feedback on my talk page. He will have another look later. I am musing on who else to leave a note on....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just left a note on Marskell's talk page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done? (with the information)

Just added the Russell stuff, so I think I've got everything in there that would be pertinent and useful that I've ever heard of. J. Spencer 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, ball's in your court...wanna go for it ;) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Over-referencing

I was asked to have a peek at this one, and my first concern regards over-referencing. Not just each sentence, but each clause is often cited. Where two different cites are used in one sentence, can one be chosen? Can double references be reduced to only those points that are potentially controversial or startling? Marskell 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Small ornithopods that may have been Thescelosaurus were seen in the last episode of Walking with Dinosaurs, being a prey species for Dromaeosaurus. Should that have mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they were Thescelosaurus and not something else? "May be" sounds like original research. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pop section be entirely removed? It basically just says that the animal isn't featured in pop culture, so it is completely irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Image of heart

It's a bit hard to see what's what and where in the current image, perhaps this[1] one is clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We could certainly give it a spin, see how we like it. J. Spencer (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you guys know....

Today I'll be hovering over this article to revert any vandalization anybody else misses, just a heads up to revert any vandalism I don't. --Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Skin?

The article make sno mention of this, but it seems skin-impressions are known from this genus? This old DML post[2] suggests it looked like that of a plucked chicken, leaving some kind of fuzz possible, and I came across this photo[3] of a skin impression from the side of one specimen at the MOR[4], doesn't look like scales? But is there anything about skin in the published literature? FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Skin Impressions?

Starting to look into modernizing this article that definitely doesn't meet current FA standards, and one thing I noticed was a complete contradiction on the article's part. The description section says that we have no idea what it's integument was like, but the discovery, history, and species section had a picture of what the caption claims are skin impressions. Okay, so the description section is wrong, right? Update it and move on. The issue is that the photo is sourced to flickr, where the claim of skin impressions is made, and I can't find any reference to it off a quick google search that doesn't lead back here. Google's scholar didn't turn up any indication it's mentioned in the literature. So it not having skin impressions may well be wrong, but we have no reliable source what is shown in the picture is a skin impression. Integument is something that has to be mentioned due to the epidermis and armor suggestions, so we can't just dodge the issue entirely. Any suggestions on what to do? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

See the section "skin?" above, the impressions were mentioned in a DML message at least, so they exist, the question is whether we can mention them here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm open to using DML messages when applicable, but this one is just too informal, brief, and speculative in tone for it to qualify as any sort of reference with nothing else as support. So they definitely do exist, but we still can't cite them existing, but we also still have to touch on the issue of integument in the article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that is was too brief, but at least it should give us the go to keep looking. The message describes the impressions as "old", so maybe they have been known for a while. Or they might not even have been described yet. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FA Improvement To-Do Comment

As part of the newly established effort in the WikiProject to maintain dated FAs and GAs, I figured I'd finally get around to polishing this old stinker up. You can see my ideas and progress over in my sandbox, but anyone sees any big issues or omissions I don't seem to be aware of, any feedback or help is appreciated. The lead, classification, and palaeobiology sections are the ones that seem most in need of attention, so any issues in the other sections might be more likely to fly under my radar.

On the topic, once improvement is finished, should I just go for putting this up for Peer Review, or could it be justifiable to do an FAR? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the description section could need some love too; from just reading it, I get little idea about what the overall shape of the skull was, for example. Could really need some info from the 2014 Boyd paper[5]. There is also little discussion of how the species differ from each other. Sentences like "As discussed more fully under "Discovery, history, and species"" also seem unorthodox and just unnecessary, I think. As for peer review, that should be manageable if advertised at the dinosaur project, but WP:FAR is hopelessly slow and undermanned. And it is mainly for discussing whether an article should be demoted or not, so might not be the right venue. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that line in particular stood at as one that I'll need to axe. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Gotta say that size comparison is baffling too; if you want to show the size of an animal, why show it almost crouching? Maybe a modification could be requested at WP:Dinoart. FunkMonk (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a new size comparison did occur to me as well. A new one would help fit more with the more uniform style we see for them nowadays, which is a nice bonus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've placed notes about things that need improving throughout the version of the article in my sandbox. Anything not there is something I've missed. Time to move on to the real work... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How's it going with these changes, LittleLazyLass? Could be nice to have them incorporated so we can get it off the pending FAR list... FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Never got around to it, and don't really have much time to dedicate to Wikipedia at the moment in light of university. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, will have to wait with the list[6] then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)