Talk:Tyrannosauridae/GA1

GA Review

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

Nice article, although I think it needs a bit of work. BTW re the "sizes" image(s) I've contacted someone about supplying images that are suitable for use with Template:Annotated image. If he supplies images, I'll do the annotations as I use that template a lot.

Things that should be covered

Compare with Tyrannosaurus. I think these should be incorporated with first, in case they have knock-on effects. To avoid massive duplication, be brief and use {{see}} to refer readers to more detailed discussions where appropriate On second thoughts, Tyrannosauridae should be the "main" article for topics that apply to the whole family. So the detailed discussion should go here and then we can slim down the genus-level articles:

•  Not doneLocomotion
  • Nice job. The only reason I've removed the "done" flag is that I think I have a couple of things to do.
  • Minor copyedit needed, which I will do.
  • Why did you not like the fuller summary of Holtz' reasoning? "longer distal hindlimb components (shin plus foot plus toes) relative to the femur length" is the reason for including the leg & foot anatomy pic. -- Philcha (talk)
    • • • However, Holtz (1998) noted that tyrannosaurids and some closely related groups had significantly longer distal hindlimb components (shin plus foot plus toes) relative to the femur length than most other theropods), and that tyrannosaurids and their close relatives had a tightly interlocked metatarsus that more effectively transmitted locomotory forces from the foot to the lower leg than in earlier theropods ("metatarsus" means the foot bones, which function as part of the leg in digitigrade animals). He therefore concluded that tyrannosaurids and their close relatives were the fastest large theropods.
    • ha? Nergaal (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
      • What are you querying? -- Philcha (talk)
        • I believe that section is already detailed enough. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
          • The point about leg bone proportions is easy for non-specialists to understand and should be in. -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you like the annotated image approach, I'll produce one for the leg bones using one of the pics FunkMonk suggested. -- Philcha (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • • Annotated image added. -- Philcha (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Not doneFeeding strategy
  • Needs to deal with whether it's possible for a huge non-flying animal to be a pure scavenger.
    • is this really relevant to the entire family? the information is already in the t-rex page, but this page should focus on the family Nergaal (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I can think of a 1-sentence summary. -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Horner has been finding plenty of daspletosaurs at Hell Creek. I suggest you Google for "Horner Hell Creek". If he says Daspletosaurus or any of the albertosaurines were scavengers, then I think Tyrannosaurid shoudl become the main artcile for this issue. If not, then Tyrannosaurus remains the main article and this one just summarises. -- Philcha ([[User

talk:Philcha|talk]]) 08:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've search eand found nothing. -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The point about the presumed T rex bite marks on the hadrosaurs and ceratopsioan is that they healed, i.e. the victims susrvived attacks by T rex on living prey. -- Philcha (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • ? Nergaal (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
      • What are you querying here? -- Philcha (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
        • how's now? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "while they were alive"? -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Not doneVision - T rex apparently had excellent binocular vision, Daspletosaurus not quite so good, most theropods had eyes on sides. Relevant to feeding strategy.
  • Basics in place, but a few more points needed - all sourced from Stevens (2006)
  • The broad temporal region and narrow snout are most marked in Tyrannosaurus, then in Daspletosaurus, then in Tarbosaurus, with albertosaurines coming last.
  • The height of Daspletosaurus′ snout slightly restricted its binocular vision.
  • The large eyeballs of most tyrannosaurids would have given them some combination of high visual acuity and high sensitivity in low light conditions. -- Philcha (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • feel free to dive in. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if that if I added significant content myself I'd have to fail the article and then put it back in the GA review queue when done, as I would no longer be a non-involved editor. -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thermoregulation
  • Add {{main|Physiology of dinosaurs}}
    • this subsection is already under a main section that links there Nergaal (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is - commnet struck out. -- Philcha (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Air sacs - all over the saurischia, especially coelurosaurs; see Physiology of dinosaurs. -- Philcha (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If adult tyrannosaurids were homoetherms, what about juveniles? -- Philcha (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition

 Not done Needs a new early section to distinguish between tyrannosaurus, tyrannosaurids and tyrannosauroids. E.g. early tyrannosauroids such as Dilong (dinosaur) and Guanlong were smaller and did not have the full package of tyrannosaurid features. Most readers won't understand taxonomic suffixes. I notice the "Description" section of the article mentions tyrannosauroids & Dilong. I see that section "Taxonomy and systematics" partly explains suffixes, but it needs to be up-front and explicit. Since that would cause duplication of content, I considered suggesting that "Taxonomy and systematics" should appear before "Description" - I wouldn't suggest this for a genus, as I'm an empiricist at heart, but Tyrannosauridae is a taxonomic construct, and such a move might work well at this level. However that would swamp readers with names that mean little until they're described. So I think a separate "Definition" section is best. BTW Image:Biological classification L Pengo.svg is a nice image of the Linnean rank structure, works OK at width 100px, see Paleontology#Classifying_ancient_organisms. -- Philcha (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A tip: make a sandbox version of the article or sections of it under your user page for such try-outs and then link to it in the review discussion - the GA reviewer for Small shelly fauna said she hadn't realised how much easier it was to try things out in a sandbox page.

Description

• BTW High-precision 40Ar/39Ar geochronology and the advent of North America’s Late Cretaceous terrestrial fauna give some detail on the Asian origin of tyrannosaurids - you should revise the text on this point. -- Philcha (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The sizes diagram is a clear case for Template:Annotated image (examples at Template:Annotated image/doc/Samples), as it can scale text independently of the image scaling and allows you to enlarge the "canvas" to allow annotations even if the actual image has narrow margins. I can handle this if you like, since there's plenty for you to do.
• This section needs a 2nd sizes diagram to the tyrannosaurids' sizes relative to non-tyrannosauroid predators - I suggest T rex and the smallest tyrannosaurid, Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (biggest theropod so far), Epanterias amplexus and the smallest allosaur, and any small Cretaceous or late Jurassic theropod. In fact this new image should go first to establish the size context.

I've asked about an image, and we're out of luck - Dinoguy2's hard drive crashed, destroying his kit of silhouettes. How about a table? -- Philcha (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should explain the functional significance of the robust skulls and robust, heterodont teeth - see Tyrannosaurus, although you might need to find a wider range of refs for the family.
• Picture of a tyrannosauroid skull would support the points you're making. Brownie points if you can find a good one that's not Tyrannosaurus! If you can find a selection, post links to them here and I'll see if any of them is good for Template:Annotated image (examples at Template:Annotated image/doc/Samples), which is great for anatomical pics - might save some explanations (see below).
• Same for dentition.
• Terms needing to be explained, at least in outline, to make the article more self-contained (there's a guideline about that, but I've forgotten its name). It also doesn't help that a lot of the anatomy articles linked to are far too human-oriented - bloody medics! See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. One that's not in the following list is "postorbital bones", because "... forming crescent-shaped crests behind the eyes" draws a picture.
  • premaxillae
  • parietal bones
  • sagittal crest
  • sagittal suture
  • nuchal crest (not even wkilinked)
  • parietal
  • lacrimal bones
  • basal (the article has not yet covered cladistics)
  • heterodont
  • maxillary and mandibular ("upper" and "lower" would do). BTW you might like ot consider using Padian's phrase "lethal bannas" (ref at Tyrannosaurus)
• "The skull was perched at the end of ..." sounds a bit wobbly. How about "mounted" or "supported"?
• I think "Tarbosaurus had the shortest forelimbs compared to its body size, while Daspletosaurus had the longest" needs a ref.
• Para "It is unclear when the arctometatarsus first evolved; it was not present in ..." looks like a continuation of the previous para - I'd tack it on the end.
• "troodontids, ornithomimids and caenagnathids" needs explaining, but I wouldn't want to see a huge amount of extra text. How about pics? If this article already has good tyrannosaurid pics, images of a representative troodontid, ornithomimid and caenagnathid may make the point well enough. I know I'm suggesting 3 pics for 1 para, but I can help with the layout if you find the pics.
• convergent evolution - I think that "... indicates that all these families acquired it independently by convergent evolution" would do.
• some copyedits needed, but best dealt with after other issues.

Taxonomy and systematics

• Terms needing to be explained, at least in outline:
  • taxon
  • genus - unless covered as part of the Linnean taxonomy in "Definition".
  • phylogenetic taxonomy - I use "evolutionary "family trees"" a lot, I even use "aunts and cousins" to describe stem groups and they've survived 3 GA reviews. You may have noticed I'm keen on Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible :-)
  • nomen dubium
  • clade
• If Brochu gets full name and wikilink (red), so should Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. However I'd have introduced Holtz in the discussion of arctometarsalia (in "Description").
• You should wikilink Eotyrannus - and first instance of all the others used in phylogenetic definitions.

Classification

• what's the source for the subfamilies?

Phylogeny

• Terms needing to be explained, at least in outline:
  • tibiae- see pic at Tyrannosaurus#Locomotion (I must replace that with Template:Annotated image some time!)
  • Cladistic
  • phylogeny
  • stress distribution - and wikilink to Stress analysis, not Stress, which is too abstract & mathematical
• Should show place of -ids and -oids relative to other theropods. Then you can perhaps milk the point that they were coelurosaurs, a name that is asscociated with small dinos.

Distribution

• The map has big problems:
  • Based on modern map, not Mesozoic. I think Late Jurassic would be best, as that's when the earliest -oids date from.
  • Legend is illegible at this scale. The coloured dots are hard to see as well. This is clear case for Template:Annotated image, as it can scale text independently of the image scaling and allows you to enlarge the "canvas" to allow annotations even if the actual image has narrow margins. If you find a Late Jurassic map, I can handle the rest, even if it means creating a new map image with a more neutral background so that the annotations and dots show up well. The best possible map would show a land bridge between N. America & Asia, to explain why these regions got the -ids and others didn't. If vertical space is a problem, e.g. because of annotations, only the N half of the map is needed.
    I couldn't find a suitable Cretaceous map, but I can adapt the existing one. -- Philcha (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No source specified in the article or image for the dates & locations of dots (finds). Some WP:RS zealots have been pushing for this, and it would be silly to risk losing a GA grade in a re-review later over this.

Tyrannosauroid may provide source(s). -- Philcha (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm surprised by "Tyrannosaurid remains have never been recovered from eastern North America". Late Cretaceous Dinosaurs of the Southeastern United States lists a few. Can you check the facts, please. I'm afraid this might need some more research.

I did some research, no strong confirmation of E USA tyrannosaurids. How about "... although less-confirmed finds have been reported from the Eastern USA"? -- Philcha (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of mentions of geological ages (within periods), which even clued-up non-specialists will find obscure. The obvious solution is Template:Cretaceous graphical timeline, but we already have space issues about the map. We should deal with this after resolving the map.
• Ideally should have pics to explain some terms, but we may have space issues - wait until map resolved:
  • lambeosaurine
  • hadrosaurs
  • centrosaurine
  • ceratopsians
  • hadrosaurines
  • chasmosaurines

Paleobiology

Growth

•  Done Another pic that should use you know what!

I've done this, so you can see how much better Template:Annotated image works for diangrams like this. -- Philcha (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• For lengths and weights it's best to use Template:Convert, as this does all the arithmetic and automatically uses the WP:MOS-approved abbreviations and puts   in the right places. Not a huge deal here, as it looks OK, but worth remembering.

Life history

• "... growth continued at a slower rate ...", Schweitzer, M.H., Wittmeyer, J.L., & Horner, J.R. (2005). "Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex". Science. 308: 1456–1460. doi:10.1126/science.1112158. PMID 15933198.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) uses "asymptotic size", which,if they used it strictly, suggests decelerating growth.
• Re "Mortality increases again following sexual maturity, partly due to the stresses of reproduction", Erickson, G.M., Currie, P.J., Inouye, B.D. and Winn, A.A. (July 2006). "Tyrannosaur Life Tables: An Example of Nonavian Dinosaur Population Biology". Science. 313 (5784): 213–217. doi:10.1126/science.1125721. PMID 16840697.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) suggests sexual competition, which to me implies that there were a lot of fatal intra-specific combats.
• Re "The tyrannosaurids spent as much as half its life in the juvenile phase before ballooning up to near-maximum size in only a few years", I'm all for more vivid language on WP, but the use of "ballooning" suggests couch potatoes - Homersaurus. Personally I'd like "bulking up" like the lnie players in American football, but I suspecct that would quickly be replaced by something stuffy. Any ideas?

Feathers

• Should wikilink 1st instance of Dilong (dinosaur)

Bony crests

• I've just noticed this duplicates content in "Description", and should be merged into "Description" - where the Alioramus skull FunkMonk has just added will complement the planned T rex skull nicely - one "primitive" tyrannosaurid and the latest model. -- Philcha (talk)

Lead

We need to review the lead after the main content is all done. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

reply

gee, where should I start? Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest with "things that should be covered" - as I said, these might have knock-on effects - and then with "definition". I know it looks like a huge list, but that's because I've tried to be explicit about about things, which I find (when I'm on the receiving end) is more helpful than general comments. -- Philcha (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But to me this looks like a FAC, not like a GAN... Nergaal (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Have a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I've seen GAs demoted after gaps in coverage were pointed out. The items I listed at "should be covered" were simply those that struck me at first sight, without any research, and are covered in Tyrannosaurus - omitting them would leave Tyrannosauridae vulnerable to demotion for gaps in coverage, which would be a shame after the work you've already put into this article.

The big one is scavenger vs hunter. Locomotion and vision are relevant to this, and the main ref about vision at Tyrannosaurus covers Daspletosaurus as well; check that ref for mentions of other tyrannosaurids. I don't know at present what sources are available for locomotion in tyrannosauridae other than Tyrannosaurus, but it's a fairly easy Google - "locomotion speed Tyrannosauridae Daspletosaurus albestrosaurus gorgosaurus tarbosaurus"; use Google Scholar to cut out the stuff that won't satisfy WP:RS.

I dont' think thermoregulation is too hard, because in the present state of knowledge you can just summarize the parts of Physiology of dinosaurs that are relevant to tyrannosaurids and start the section with {{see|Physiology of dinosaurs}}

In short, a lot of it's copying and pasting plus minor re-phrasing.

I actually wanted to add those but I noticed that they are covered only in one or two of the subspecies, so it wouldn't necessarly be representative of the family. Nergaal (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The vision ref comments on tarbosaurs & albertosaurs.

I expect that if you Google Scholar for arctometarsalia (mentioned at Tyrannosaurus you'll find which critters Holtz assigned to this clade, and that it encompasses the tyannosaurids. Admittedly arctometarsalia is no longer regarded as a useful clade, but the arguments about foot & ankle anatomy will still hold.

Horner's on a long-term dig pulling tyannosaurids out of Hell Creek like theres' no tomorrow, and he's the leading advocate for the "pure scavenger" view. So that's another easy Google.

The growth graph already covers all tyannosaurids. There's other useful growth-related stuff at Physiology of dinosaurs, read it.

Physiology of dinosaurs has plenty on avian-style air sacs, which is relevant to metabolism.

And I've produced all that just from memory. You'll find more if you start looking and mining existing articles. -- Philcha (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a "Definition" section to distinguish between tyrannosaurus, tyrannosaurids and tyrannosauroids is essential in order to help non-specialist readers, who are not familiar with the suffixes. There's no need to go into distingishing characteristics of all these taxa - just explain the terms amd their place in the hierarchy - I guess about 6 lines (i.e. shorter than this reply is so far!).

I've already said that I'll produce the Annotated images, in fact I've done one already. Do you agree that it's a lot more legible than old one (for comparison see e.g. Physiology_of_dinosaurs#Growth_and_lifecycle)?

I've asked someone else to provide an image for a size comparison of tyrannosaurids with other theropod predators. If that comes through, I'll annotate it. It shouldn't take me long to produce an annotated version of the existing one showing onlty tyrannosaurid sizes.

I think there are already other images in other articles that can be used in this one to illustrate e.g. the supposed prey animals.

I've looked for a Cretaceous map on which to plot tyrannosaurids' distribution, and there appears to be nothing suitable - they are all far too complex and colourful for such a simple plot. I can cut the S hemisphere out of the existing one to save space, expand what's left and then annotate it.

So IIRC all that needs some hunting down is a pic of a tyrannosaurid skull that makes it easy to point out the features listed in the article. If you provide that, I can handle the annotations.

After that it's just a few minor tweaks. -- Philcha (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this[1] is the best picture of a tyrannosaurid skull we have by far (informative, sharp, non-distorted, exact profile, minimal noise, specimen number is known), but since you request images of other genera than Tyrannosaurus, here are the best, but they're not as good ast the first one I think.[2][3]

I think the first one should be used, but the background on the image might have to be cleaned up, which would be an easy job.

As for the images of troodonts etc., Im not sure that's needed as long as the names are wikified, people can just go to their respective pages, since they aren't discussed in depth in the text, only mentioned. But I think the article should have an image of each tyrannosaur genera, skeletons of all (that we have), and maybe restorations for few. Here are what I think are the best images of each genus (excluding Tyrannosaurus): Albertosaurus[4], Gorgosaurus[5], Daspletosaurus[6], Tarbosaurus[7]. Also, best image of Jane, if we need it[8], and best image of a tyrannosaur interacting with prey[9]. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I actually managed to find a PD image which is comparable to the one of Tyrannosaurus, a little less clear, but it's of Gorgosaurus:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, FunkMonk! I agree, [11] is easily the best.

Re images of smaller contemporary theropods, it's the kind of thing I play by ear when writing articles, making trade-ffs of information against layout. I'd give priority to the least-known in order to help readers - in this case I suspect caenagnathids would come top of the list, as I know zilch about them! -- Philcha (talk)

If you really want them in, I'll see if I can find the best pics of a caenagnathid, etc, would you prefer bones or restorations? I've got a pretty good overview of what images we have on Commons, since I've edited a good deal of them for example, and I know where I can find stuff if we don't have anything already, so if you need something, just ask, heh. Also, did you see the Gorgosaurus skull image I posted right above your message? It's almost as good as the Tyrannosaurus skull. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re smaller theropods, after seeing Chirostenotes I think restorations would be nice. Almost everyone has a fair idea of what T rex looked like, and seeing smaller theropods with feathers will make more impression than bones, I think.

Re tyrannosaurid skull, the first one you recommended (T rex at Commons) is even better than the Gorgosaurus skull image you posted, and will clean up more easily so that annotations show up well. -- Philcha (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll be exciting to see how an actual photograph can interact with the annotations. By the way, can you clean up the image yourself, or should I? Maybe we should have an actual photo of a Tyrannosaurus leg with annotations for the leg diagram in the Tyrannosaurus article too? And the image of the Chirostenotes would be the safests to use, since it's the only restoration of a well known caenagnathid we have, the other one is of Nomingia, which isn't known from much material. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can clean up the T rex skull - I'll yell for help if I can't.

If you can suppy a pic with an articulated Tyrannosaurus leg on a light bg, yes, that would be great.

Having seen the rather theatrical-looking fan on the tail of the Nomingia restororation, I'd go for Chirostenotes. -- Philcha (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I found some legs that could perhaps be used, they're in a public domain paper in the form of a PDF, so I'll post them here in a moment. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here are some high resolution images of the left leg of Tyrannosaurus for that article, might be used here too, front view:[12] Side view:[13] Should be easy to cut and clean up since the background is light and neutral. Author and date info, for when you upload the image:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The side one looks good. I'll need to do some work to keep the nearer leg dark and fade the rest so it doesn't distract from the point about the limnb proportions, but I think that will look great. -- Philcha (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could perhaps even cut everything but the nearest leg completely out of the picture, like on the current drawn version. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

reply part 2

ok, so where should I start... Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest with "things that should be covered" - as I said, these might have knock-on effects - and then with "definition", to help out the non-specialist readers. -- Philcha (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nergaal, I see you've beefed up the article significantly - thanks for the work you're putting into it. I have a few small comments which I've added under the appropriate sections above, to make it easy to track which parts are really finished. However this is starting to look like a really strong article!

BTW what did you think of my conversion of the "growth curves" graph to use Template:Annotated image? If you like it, I'll convert others as soon as I'm less busy sorting out Spider, which is under threat of losing its GA status. -- Philcha (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The annotated foot looks great, Phil! FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% confused to what is happening in this review. Please add the todo stuff below. Nergaal (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The todo stuff is above your first reply. I think it would be confusing to produce another copy of the same list below this.

BTW I'd prefer it if you didn't mark items with  Done, as that's a reviewer's job.

OTOH if you want to comment on any items in the todo list, feel free to do so within the list as if each item is a normal discussion - that's worked out fine for articles I've submitted for GA review. -- Philcha (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: place {{notdone}} labels at the issues that I should focus my energy next (about 5). Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One note: this article is getting close to becoming huge. Before suggesting it is worth going into more detail about issues, consider thinking about how relevant is the issue to the entire family, or the article will go well over 100k. Nergaal (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus, which is FA, is 97KB while Tyrannosaurid is currently a little under 79KB, so there's 18KB to spare. I can also see places where Tyrannosaurid can be tightened up without sacrificing coverage, although I don't think that's necessary for GA.

I have more than doubled the size of the article, but (correct me if I am wrong) it still seems far away from being done. I have spent a lot of time on this and I am not sure I have the enthusiasm necessary to do another bulk of work on this article... Nergaal (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've practically told you what sentences are relevant in some of the refs. There's also a lot you could use in Tyrannosauroidea - refs, ideas about what should be detailed and what should be summarised in articles about each level of the family tree (Tyrannosauroidea, Tyrannosauridae, and genus articles such as Tyrannosaurus) -- Philcha (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GA criteria

Just to quote one of them:

3.a it addresses the main aspects of the topic — This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

Nergaal (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The "points that should be covered" came from my background knowledge without any research on my part. Since dinos are a popular topic, especially those charismatic tyrannosaurids, lots of alert teenagers would see the same gaps. If I were using "comprehensive" as a standard I'd have done some research first to put together from a wide range of sources a shopping list of topics that should be covered.

This is getting silly. You seem to have spent more time arguing with me than working in the article. I could have improved the article considerably in the time I've spent arguing with you. FunkMonk and I have done more work on the article than you have since this review started.

A source that's already used and available for free has more on the vision of Tyrannosaurids. Google Scholar for "tyrannosaurid predator scavenger" showed plenty of material on feeding strategy, including one in the first 5 hits that a quick skim persuaded me was right on the money, and available for free. I've also pointed out related articles that contain useful material and sources.

I've asked for a second opionion. -- Philcha (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - Please put all comments and responses above this line - - - - - - - - - - -

Second Opinion

I'm going to be providing the second opinion for this article and hopefully clearing up the confusion that's happening here. Please allow me 24 hours to provide full feedback for this article. If you have any relevant questions or comments please contact me on my talk page. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Images are used correctly with ALT Text and Captions.
• Could not find any instances of weasel words, and contractions are not being used. I believe it is reasonably well written, not up to Featured Article status, but it meets the GA Article Criteria in my opinion.
• I'm satisfied that the article is written from a Neutral Point of View.
• The article is stable - there's been no edit warring or substantial/massive changes from day to day.
• The article cited to a satisfactory level in my opinion.

The basic "problem" was mainly to do with how broad the article was. If I'd come to the page, not knowing anything about the topic (which incidentally, is the case with me), I feel the article provides a stack of information and references. So as far as I can see, it's broad whilst still being focused.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: (In my opinion, this article meets the GA Criteria.)

If this was my review I would pass the article - however I'm leaving it to the original reviewer to consider my input and make the final decision. If you disagree with their final decision you can always ask for a re-assessment. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of Pursey's "If I'd come to the page, not knowing anything about the topic (which incidentally, is the case with me), I feel the article provides a stack of information and references" I'll pass the article as GA. Thanks for your help, Pursey. -- Philcha (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)