Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raptor Red

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:31, 27 September 2008 [1].

Raptor Red edit

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

Tenderly nurtured by my own sweet self from a draft in my relatively formative years, got it to DYK, then GA, then left it to rot while I did video game stuff. Thanks to the magic of LexisNexis and a college library I was able to trawl for print sources to boost this up to a relatively short but comprehensive article. Eald dig a check on the sources at one point, and I went through Tony's exercises so there should be less dash crap and redundancies than my usual. Just you guys wait until you're as tired of dinosaur topics as you are of my video games... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the line, Bob Bakker's audiobook royalties—totalling at least $34,000 by November 1995[6]—were donated to the Tate Museum in Casper, Wyoming,[9] where Bakker was curator[10] avoid putting footnotes before dashes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FN, the footnote belongs before the dash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, where would I put it then? It's citing the figure, not anything else, so I kinda have to have it there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could convert the dash to a comma, but otherwise there's not much to do, and I never really understood that guideline/suggestion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Good job. Some things:

  • "The book opens with the title character and her mate ambushing a herd of Astrodon, large herbivorous sauropods." With + -ing construction is awkward. Try: "In the book's opening, the title character and her mate ambush a herd of Astrodon, which are large herbivorous sauropods."
  • "The Astrodon are surprised by the Utahraptor, thinking that that their bulk makes them immune to attack." Unclear. Whose bulk is the sentence referring to. These two ideas don't belong together.
  • "The pterosaur, satisfied, heads off to parts unknown to find a mate of his own." Why not "The satisfied pterosaur"? Is "parts unknown" really necessary?
  • "Raptor Red was favorably received by critics, with the mainstream press responding positively to Bakker's work." This sentence can be shortened: "Raptor Red was favorably received by critics and the mainstream press."
  • "Bakker's anthromorphism of the dinosaurs was praised,[4][6][13] with a reviewer for the Toronto Star saying that 'Raptor Red does for dinosaurs what some nature writing does for creatures alive today: it turns data into stories." With + -ing again: "Bakker's anthromorphism of the dinosaurs was praised;[4][6][13] a reviewer for the Toronto Star said that 'Raptor Red does for dinosaurs what some nature writing does for creatures alive today: it turns data into stories."
  • "Paleontologist Thomas Holtz, for example, noted that Bakker combined fauna in ways not directly supported by the fossil record; for example, some dinosaur species in the book may or may not have died out before the arrival of Utahraptor." Repetition of "for example", I suggest removing the first occurence of that phrase.
  • Two links need to be disambiguated. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for the review; I've fixed all the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed reading the article, but it needs some more attention from a copy-editor. I made a start, [2] but I'm too busy with another FAC to continue. I am concerned about the use of colloquialisms in the article: Cuts him off, whacks, beating up and what does distrupted mean? Even disrupted does not make much sense in the context. What were the baby dinosaurs doing to amuse themselves when rolling the hill? Does it mean by rolling down a hill? And, why on Wikipedia are people constantly stating rather than saying stuff these days? Please check for redundancy—there's some lurking in there. Graham Colm Talk 08:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. I can't check links, the link tool is down! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links check out with the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to copyedit (at David's request), hopefully done in a few days. One thing I should point out, though, the page referencing is inconsistent (it should be "p. xx" for single pages, and "pp. xx&nsbp;xx" for multiple ones). · AndonicO Engage. 02:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Ok, looking at the infobox, i was just wondering about some of the following things per Template:Infobox Book:

  • Shouldnt the current cover be replaced with a first edition version, ie the hardback. An image can be found here but its not great quality.
  • There should be an image caption highlighting the cover edition, eg Raptor Red first edition cover.
  • Theres no cover artist listed, using the "cover_artist" thingo. And maybe the internal illustrations could be credited using "illustrator"
  • You dont specify the language in the infobox. Shouldnt "| language = English language|English" be added.
  • I Found a more specific release date on Amazon. Now i found them generally riable but i dont no if they are a listed source. However according to this page, it was released August 1, 1995
  • The media type listing could be changed to: "| media_type = Print (Hardcover & Paperback)
    Audiobook" for a better appearance
  • Pages should be changed to "| pages = 246 pp (first edition)"
  • and finally the ISBN should be changed to the first edition ISBN 0553101242

Just a few comments, hope they have been helpful. Salavat (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 404 with the link you provided. As for amazon, in my experience they've had release dates dead wrong before, and I haven't found another reference which gives anything more specific than later in 1995. There's no point in adding an illustrator as Bakker does all the illustrations. I don't know if it was published in languages other than english, I don't really think that's essential for the article (I also detest infobox cruft.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, sounds all fair, was he the cover artist to? also link to hardcover here, but if the paperback is used for a specific reason then the change isnt neccessary. Salavat (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he was, but I unfortunately don't have my copy at college so I can verify that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, all seems fair, and my comments have been addressed so i can only support now. Salavat (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's comments

  • Tell me if you disagree with this
  • I think "featuring many of his theories regarding dinosaurs' social habits, intelligence, and the world in which they lived" should probably appear after the next sentence (which is a very basic outline of what the book is).
  • "Bakker received a large advance for the novel, rumored to be in the six-figure range" - who'd he receive it from?
  • Could the Publication history section just be part of the Background section, since it's so short? (Basically just remove the header.)

And that's about it. Giggy (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change looks fine, and I clarified who he got the advance from and merged in the publication history. I'm not really sure about moving the last sentence of the first paragraph, though. It gives a top-level overview of the book, what it's about, and what's so special about it. The second paragraph is just a plot outline, and understanding what Bakker's intention with the book was is not dependent on knowledge of the plot introduction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead, I meant something like this. Up to you which version you think is better. Giggy (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as all other concerns are addressed. Giggy (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

  • "a apex predator"
Should it be "an apex predator"?
  • "while Discovery Channel host Jay Ingram wrote an editorial defending Bakker's creative decisions"
How about "while Discovery Channel host Jay Ingram defended Bakker's creative decisions in an editorial"?

Background

  • "Another of the novel's goals was to dispel the common perception of predators as evil, instead of as creatures to be admired and empathized with."
I felt "instead of as" was awkward. "Another of the novel's goals was to dispel the common perception of predators as evil and portray them as creatures to be admired and empathized with."
  • " "Most predators had some trauma, they had been beaten up—for a simple reason: Dinner fights back." "
This quote stood alone (though we know, through implication, it is Bakker's, gramatically...), it requires attribution to Bakker, e.g. "Bakker continued,".
  • "Bakker received a large advance for the novel from Bantam"
From Marawaan Bantam? Heh, Bantam deserves to be introduced as a publisher (either by introduction or as Bantam Books).

Setting and characters

  • Suggestion: Use Red to denote the character (I see a few occasions this was used) and Raptor Red for the book (even though italics can separate the two). If the decision is to adhere to the name, then those singular "Red"s have to be removed.
  • "Bakker gives an individual view of each species of dinosaur or ancient creature"
Does the story go through the viewpoints of these secondary roles (hence an amalgam of Red's and their perspectives), or does it occasionally focus on the tales of these secondary characters through Red's eyes?
  • "The Astrodon are surprised, thinking that their bulk makes them immune to attack."
Invincibility or deterrence? "The Astrodon are surprised, thinking that their bulk deters predators from attacking them."
  • "nearly starving since as a lone Utahraptor she cannot successfully hunt big game."
Suggesting: "nearly starving since a Utahraptor cannot successfully hunt big game on its own."
  • "When the male raptor and Raptor Red's sister begin fighting, Raptor Red tries to defuse the situation, torn between a prospective mate and her kin."
Suggesting: "A fight erupts between the male raptor and Red's sister. Red, torn between a prospective mate and her kin, tries to defuse the situation."
  • "Two Acrocanthosaurus watch the commotion and see an opportunity to attack the Utahraptor, while a Kronosaurus ambushes one of the chicks."
Was the window for attack open during the Kronosaurus ambush or unrelated to it? If the former, "Two Acrocanthosaurus watch the commotion and attack the Utahraptor when a Kronosaurus ambushes one of the chicks." If the latter, "Two Acrocanthosaurus watch the commotion and take the opportunity to attack the Utahraptor. Meanwhile, a Kronosaurus ambushes one of the chicks."
  • "Raptor Red, seeing the danger, tricks the female Acrocanthosaurus, luring her into deep water where she is dragged under by the Kronosaurus."
Suggesting: "Seeing the danger, Red lures the female Acrocanthosaurus into deep water where the larger predator is dragged under by the Kronosaurus."
  • "her consort is forced away"
By whom?
  • "The oldest chick now accompanies the two adults on hunting expeditions."
If there were three chicks at the start, and a chick died, that leaves two. Would that not mean "the older chick"? (The chick is referred to as the "older" at the end of the section.)
  • "Sensing the weakness of the Utahraptor pack, they surround the nest. <break> Raptor Red’s sister dies, and Raptor Red is crippled and defenseless against the smaller dinosaurs."
I find the situation unclear. Did the Deinos cripple Red and kill her sister, or was the Utahraptors' plight a result of their previous wounds? This can be made clearer by either tacking on "and attack" to "surround the nest", or rearranging the second paragraph to first read that the smaller raptors are waiting for the two larger raptors to expire (which happened to Red's sister).
  • "Raptor Red’s consort returns, helping the Utahraptor chick to defend the nest."
This seems to hint that the Utahraptor chick is already at the nest site and defending against the Deinos... Wait... are we talking about the younger chick? Make it explicit, if it is the younger, insert "younger". If it is the older chick, state "Red's consort returns with the older chick".
My beef with the current sentence "Red's consort returns, helping the older Utahraptor chick to defend the nest." is that the reader has to presume the older chick has returned and was defending the nest when her mother died (due to the earlier "the older chick is forced to find the pack's food").
  • "Both Raptor Red and the older chick have mated"
Eh, maybe it is just me, but Red and her niece (or nephew) mated with each other?

Reception

  • "Bakker's anthropomorphism of the dinosaurs was praised"
Suggesting: "Much praise was given to Bakker's anthropomorphism of the dinosaurs"
  • "that the dinosaurs were indeed creatures like Bakker portrayed"
Using like as a conjunction with sensory perception is informal (well... according to the American Heritage Dictionary[3]). Suggesting: "that the dinosaurs were indeed creatures as Bakker portrayed."
  • "Family-values-oriented site"
What is this? Can we not go with "Commentary and news site" or to be explicit "Men's News Daily, a site which focuses on social values," ?
  • "[...] and stated that "The merging [...]" and "[...] and said that "The most [...]"
These are full quotations; hence "[...] and stated, "The merging [...]" and "[...] and said, "The most [...]".

That is it for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AllMost of the issues have been resolved, and the two that remain might just be matters of viewpoints and can be readily resolved if they do prove to be troubling issues. The article is in good shape and comprehensive enough for a novel (background, conception, story, reception). Jappalang (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and rephrased. I think it's clear now that the raptor chick was gone and returns with the consort. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Raptor_Red&oldid=1142602592"