Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Tyrannosaurus edit

Come a long way since last FAC, with major issues, such as reference consistency etc, being fixed. The article would be great on the main page & in the 0.5 CD version due to the dinosaur's popularity. The wikiproject dinosaurs team has worked hard on the article & are continuing to improve the article... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC).  [reply]

  • Nominator support: As per above... Spawn Man 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think it is about as comprehensive as one can get, and reads well. Cas Liber 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This popular dinosaur is not only well-described, some of the 'character' of the beast is transmitted through the article. - Ballista 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object underreferenced:there are numerous paragraphs that are not referenced at all.(Other minor points:it would be easier on the reader if you would put your citations in a bibiliographic style, rather than links to websites, and don't forget to alphabeticize your categories.)Sandy 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My I ask what you call these? Scotch mist? - Spawn Man 04:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC):[reply]
Those are references.How many references you have listed is a different issue than whether you have inline citations referencing every statement that needs one.Sandy 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: As I stated below, I have referenced many sections, now almost 90% referenced. When I got Dinosaur featured, voters there said only 80% & above could be allowed. I have also gone through & copyedited all grammar points that I could find in the text, such as extra commas, rewording, deletion etc. Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another look.Random paragraph:

Susan Hendrickson, amateur paleontologist, discovered the most complete (more than 90%) and largest Tyrannosaurus fossil skeleton currently known, in the Hell Creek Formation near Faith, South Dakota, on August 12, 1990. This Tyrannosaurus, now named "Sue" in her honor, became embroiled in a legal battle over its ownership. In 1997 this was settled in favor of Maurice Williams, the original land owner and the fossil collection was sold at auction for USD 7.6 million. It has now been reassembled and is currently exhibited at the Field Museum of Natural History. Based on a study of her fossilized bones, Sue died at 28 years of age, having reached her full size at 19 years of age. Researchers report that a subadult and a juvenile skeleton were found in the same quarry as Sue; this lends evidence to the possibility that tyrannosaurs ran in packs or other groups.[45]

The source for this paragraph is the Guinness Book of World Records, p.90.If I go to Guinness, will I find a description of this lawsuit over ownership?Will I find the discussion of Sue's age, her full size at 19 years, and the juvenile skeleton?Is everything in this paragraph in Guiness?Or, does Guiness just say she is the largest fossil currently known?

Prose problems in this paragraph, as the example of need for more copy-editing: comma needed after "the original land owner"."It has now been reassembled", redundant."Researchers report" is vague:is that exact statement in Guiness?I'd still like to see tighter references and copyediting.Sandy 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are now alphabetized.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added a few citations.... Spawn Man 04:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the above 2 objections: Actually, now I've added lots of citations in addition to the end References above. I used my vast collecting of dinosaur fact books, so it's mostly done now... I counted & out of the whole article, only 2 or 3 sections of 2-4 sentences are uncited. That's around 80-85% of the article.... Spawn Man 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)  [reply]
Once the refs are put into proper bibliographic style and not just URLs I will support.Tobyk777 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second response to above comment: I am not thouroughly experienced in what you are requesting. Would you be able to explain it a bit more or perhaps even show me an example on one of them? Reference always seem to be my down fall when I try to fix them halfway through someone else's footnotes... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refrneces 26 28 and 30 are still wrong.Use This page for an example of perfect refrencing.Tobyk777 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That page has a reference to "44 ^ Sevral (sic) episodes from Dark Angel, Season Two (2001–2002)". Is that really how you want us to format? With incorrect spelling and references to TV shows?!--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There arn't any spelling errors in that refrence.I don't want you to refrence a TV show, but since that article was refering to a TV show when it made that citation, it makes perfect sense to refrence a TV show.An article about a show would obviously refrence the show it's on.Now, that aside, we are getting sidetracked.I just gave that article as an example of perfect refrencing.(If you hate what's being refrneced or the subject of the article it doesn't matter because it was just an example of a format.) All I have been trying to say here before all of this irelevant conversation was that you need more bibliographic info than just a url.Tobyk777 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "sevral" is misspelled: the proper spelling is "several". I cannot base a Featured Article Candidate's references on a bunch of misspelled references.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was just giving it as an example FoR.... Spawn Man 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he said it was an example of perfect references. Clearly, it's not. I've based most of our references on the examples WP gives on WP:CITE.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concens have been adressed. Change vote to Support Tobyk777 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support... Spawn Man 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "Other giant theropods" section is irrelevant in this article and should be removed. And could you expand the "Appearances in popular culture" section? T. Rex is one of the most popular dinos and should get a large culuture section. CG 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above comment: I've deleted the section mentioned. The reason T rex has such a small pop culture section is because it actually got so big it was moved to its own page. I have summarised its main movie appearance & what types of media it has appeared in. Any more than that & we might as well move the whole trex in pop culture page back into the t rex article. Thanks for your comments, & I sincerly hope you could be able to vote now... Spawn Man 07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

 

  • Object—2a. The density of problems in the lead suggests that the entire text needs a good massage by someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the text.
    • Join the first two paragraphs; that will solve the problem of "It" at the start of the second para.
    • "Tyrannosaurus is now a prime subject of ongoing scientific research and popular culture, although there have been published reports of larger predatory dinosaurs (such as Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus)." No, "although" as a contrastive works only against the second item, "popular culture"; avoid parentheses unless required. Try this: "Tyrannosaurus is now the subject of ongoing scientific research; it holds a special place in popular culture, although there have been published reports of larger predatory dinosaurs, such as Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus."
    • 3000 lb? What about the 95% of the human race who use the metric system?
    • Rather than "interesting", make it "important". "Tyrannosaurus finds" is a bit loose. Perhaps reword. Better still, start this para with the current second sentence. Link to USA is not required. (Put up your hand if you don't know what it is.)
    • An en dash would be so much nicer to seperate the ranges (12–13 rather than 12-13). While we're on ranges, instead of "4 tons[6] to 8 tons", make it "4–8 tons".
    • "Compared with", not "to", for contrasts.
    • "unlike in mammals" is a bit awkward.

This should be a FA, so please fix it throughout. Tony 10:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tony's objection: Thanks you very much for your comments (not so much for the oppose.... ;)) I have tried my hardest & completed all of your tasks to my fullest extent. If you can still see anything wrong, please don't hesitate to tell. I sincerly hope you could be able to support the article now.... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC).  [reply]
Tony gave samples:did you fix those samples only, or have you thoroughly copy-edited the entire text, and referenced *everything*?If so, I'll have another look as well.Sandy 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only fixed the stuff he said. How am supposed to know what he considers good grammar? I mean I thought "Compared "with", not "to", for contrasts", would have also been fine "Compared "to", not "with", for contrasts". So how am I suypposed to guess if my evaluations are different? Spawn Man 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I have now gone through & copyedited all grammar points that I could find in the text, such as extra commas, rewording, deletion etc. I sincerly hope you could be able to support now, as I feel I have met both yours (Tony) & Sandy's requests. Thanks a bunch... Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

 

Looking at it (I haven't edited much on this article), I have reduced some of the material on Sue and the scientific research sentence is redundant. Hopefully it reads better now Cas Liber 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's a worthwhile topic, and clearly a lot of interesting material has been brought together in this article. However, I am not at all convinced by the structure. It makes reference to the question of feathers, which is a general issue of therapods, but does not treat warm-bloodedness in the same way. If I had my way, I would have both referred to briefly, pointing to the relevant article elsewhere - if necessary, spin out the material into a stub. The "environment" section similarly is far too detailed, bolstered with facts that seem very tangential to the subject, and no particular link is made (how was the evolution of Tyrannosaurus shaped by the environment? do we have enough evidence to even make an intelligent guess?). Finally, I was unimpressed by the "Dinosaur Cards" references - are these reliable? Are Gibbons, T. and Gibbons, L. really two different people, or did initials get mixed up? Sadly oppose for now.- Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above oppose: Hey don't dis the dino cards man ;). No their initials did not get mixed up. Smith is the worlds most common last name, so who says two researchers can't have the same last name? They might be related.... For the rest of you requests I'm not too sure what you're talking about? Tony1's requests (above) were clear & precise. Yours I'm afraid went over my head. Would you be able to explain, perhaps in bullet points & simpler language, what exactly you want done? Thanks, it would help a lot to get the article featured. And unless you don't want it featured, I don't see why it couldn't hurt... Thnaks, Spawn Man 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten the section on feathers, make a separate article from the original material
  • Also make a short section for the warm-bloodedness debate
  • Make the "environment" section relevant to the article or toss it, certainly shorten it
  • Find better references for all points supported by the dino cards
Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1st response to above comments: Have you seen a dinocard? Probably not. Have you personally read each of the references on the refs section. Probably not, me neither. So why just object to the dino cards? Why not the rest? Why not get refs for the refs, just to make sure that they're all legit?? Please assume good faith Samsara (that was a good movie...), & I take it as a personal attack when someone attacks my references & my work... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you can sympathise with Talk:Fedora_Core#POV no matter what you write?. At the end of the day, this is not about me and you, it's about what the people reading the article are going to think about Wikipedia. FA us about the "best of Wikipedia" and everybody's initial reaction is going to be the same as mine: "collecting cards, WTF?" Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above Samsara comment: They provide acurate information. Infact, the information was already there & I only used the cards to provide a reference to the text. In fact, none of the text was taken from the cards, they were only used to cite the text facts. Also, they are not "collecting cards". Collecting cards are silly little toys that have wierd monsters on them ending in "mon". In fact, thses cards are only called cards because they come in segmented packets. They are A4 sized documents on dinosaurs. Not small pocket sized ones. Spawn Man 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the ones exactly. I've told you what I think someone not familiar with those cards will think when seeing that reference, and I believe in my judgement as much as the first split-second. Good faith is assumed but the article is still lacking, and, what's worse, we are wasting each other's time in unnecessary crossfire. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Response: I have provided additional refs for some of the card's cites. I have also added a warm blood section useing info from Dinosaur & from my books... Thanks & I sincerly hope you would be able to vote now due to these changes.... Spawn Man 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to response to above comments: Samsara, I have come across several articles where husband/wife teams have co-written articles. I can't comment for these ones but Rich/Vickers-Rich are one example for dinosaur researchers, I have others in botnay and other areas. cheers Cas Liber 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm aware of that. It's always worth checking for a spelling mistake, though. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Samsara: May I ask why you are objecting now Samsara? I have done all of your requests to my fullest extenet & provided many new references for un supported dino card refs. Although the dino cards are researched & legitimit, I have still complied. If you feel there is still work to do, so can't fully support, why not change your vote to neutral? Thanks, Spawn Man 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my two questions on talk; there are also some remaining items on the todo list that I would like to see completed before it goes to the front page. Sandy has also raised concerns about the Guinness reference, which btw, appears twice. Why feature it before it's ready?
As for the dino cards, I'll need to find a quiet moment to see if there remain any statements supported solely by those. If not, we can take them out. Otherwise, we'll have to work on finding more orthodox sources. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still entire paragraphs supported solely by Dino Cards references. Do these not give primary references (meaning articles in peer-reviewed journals)? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several new sections and I am slowly working my way down the article, citing things properly. I don't expect support until that task is done, mind you, but if you wouldn't mind reading over the new sections, it would be much appreciated.Sheep81 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not feel the article in its current state is FA-worthy, but that with a little rearrangement and revision it can be. I have been working on this article on my userpages for awhile now. I am not done yet as prior commitments have taken up most of my time this summer. However, there are a few sections I feel can be transferred directly to the article. I have expanded the lead to three paragraphs which summarize the article and copy-edited them using Tony's guide as my basis (they may still need work of course). I have expanded the Characteristics section and used primary scientific sources as references instead of the current tertiary sources. In my opinion, if we are going to use summary style on the pop culture section (which we should), then the pop culture section in the Tyrannosaurus article should only summarize the information on the main "T. rex in pop culture" article, not introduce a whole lot of new information. So I've done that also. Sheep81 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny primary sources (in the form of scientific papers) are preferrable to tertiary ones. However, some readers may actually prefer quick web-links with exciting graphics as opposed to sometimes dry, incomprehensible (to mainstream people) scientific jargon of pdf files. Can we at least keep a few of the web-links and such from well-respected online journals like Smithsonian Online, etc?--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly referring to the trading cards and such.Sheep81 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not trading cards gad dammit! Spawn Man 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I apologize. Whatever they are, they're not primary or even secondary sources, so they shouldn't be used as references in an encyclopedia article. Right? Plus they aren't online, so it's not like they are any easier to find than the primary sources are. In fact they are probably harder to find. By the way I have expanded the classification section! Sheep81 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I doubt even legal deposit libraries have them. They don't seem to have an ISBN, and I doubt they ever get reprinted. In fact, I am only familiar with these in a subscription context, where you'd be waiting several months before you get the actual card you want. Am I right? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Sheepy put above, he has put numerous new references to support the dinocards... Spawn Man 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, incidentally. Sheep81 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are now at least 60 footnoted references, all, from what I can tell, in the proper format listed at WP:CITE. With many additions by Sheep, copyedits by Ballista and Cas, refs added by Spawn Man and myself, and additional material by Samsara, I feel I can now fully support. It should be noted, however, that I am a member of WP:Dinosaurs, so take my vote with a grain of salt.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to him, WPDinosaurs has never seen him before! ;)...

  Spawn Man 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - copyright status of Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg needs to be cleared up. It's claimed under a Creative Commons attribution license, but I can't see an unequivocal attribution. Is the Field Museum the owner of the image's copyright content or is it just the holder or host of the image? Additionally, there's no particular source information - where did this image file come from? Is there a URL or a book it came from? (In theory this picture should {{nsd}}'d at the moment!) If it's being claimed under a CC license, I'd expect to see some information that makes clear that the copyright holder actually did release it under this license - obviously I'm assuming good faith and believe 100% that the image uploader has correctly identified the copyright status. Nevertheless we get a never-ending barrage of images which are claimed to be "copyrighted but the holder has released all rights" - with no hint of proof attached - and, WP:AGF or not, these usually end up getting zapped at WP:IFD. If it is a free image it needs to be proven to be free. TheGrappler 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're in luck. We can prepare & said that if the brain picture caused any objections, it would then be repalced by a good looking skull image of her skull which if free. Hope you will be able to support now that your problem is resolved. The image didn't really add that much anyway... Thanks, Spawn Man 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection removed, thanks: but can somebody tell me whether that image is free? I'll take it IFD if it isn't... it claims to be free but I can't see any evidence, which is all I'm asking for. TheGrappler 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no idea the lisence, all I know is that it was causing problems. Take it out for drinks for I care. Thanks! Spawn Man 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC). BTW, Is this a support or now just a neutral?[reply]
Put it this way, I'm not objecting. But I don't feel qualified to state that anybody else's currently "live" objections are incorrect, or that I have studied the article and references in sufficient depth to state full support. I do feel qualified to state, however, that the images used in this article are appropriate, and now have excellent copyright status. TheGrappler 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sensible thing would be to remove the dino card references altogether as per the arguments that have been brought forward. Then we would see plainly that the following sections are still supported solely by Dino Cards:
Modern carnivores are seldom strict predators or scavengers. Lions for example, sometimes scavenge prey that hyenas have killed (and vice versa). Scavenging behavior depends upon prey availability, among many other factors.
Some other evidence exists that suggests hunting behavior in Tyrannosaurus. The ocular cavities of Tyrannosaurs are positioned so that the eyes would point forward, giving the dinosaur binocular vision. A scavenger might not need the advanced depth perception that stereoscopic vision affords; in modern animals, binocular vision is found primarily in predators. Bite marks in other animals and even other tyrannosaur fossils suggest predatory behavior.
When examining Sue, paleontologist Pete Larson found a broken and healed fibula and tail vertebrae, scarred facial bones and a tooth from another Tyrannosaurus embedded in a neck vertebra. If correct, it might be strong evidence for aggressive behavior between tyrannosaurs but whether it would be competition for food and mates or active cannibalism it is unclear. However, further recent investigation of these purported wounds has shown that most are infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death) and the few injuries are too general to be indicative of intraspecific conflict. In the Sue excavation site, an Edmontosaurus annectens skeleton was also found with healed tyrannosaur-inflicted scars on its tail. The fact that the scars seem to have healed suggests active predation instead of scavenging a previous kill. Another piece of evidence is a Triceratops found with a third of its horn missing and a tooth mark along a piece of frill. Again, these were inflicted by a tyrannosaur and they too appear healed.
Scientists who think that Tyrannosaurus was able to run slowly point out that hollow Tyrannosaur bones and other features that would have lightened its body may have kept adult weight to a mere 5 tons or so, or that other animals like ostriches and horses with long, flexible legs are able to achieve high speeds through slower but longer strides. Additionally, some have argued that Tyrannosaurus had relatively larger leg muscles than any animal alive today, which could have enabled fast running (40–70 km/h or 25–45 mph).
or it may have used ambush tactics, to attack faster prey animals.
The vertebrae named Manospondylus by Cope in 1892 can be considered the first known specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex. Barnum Brown, assistant curator of the American Museum of Natural History, found the second Tyrannosaurus skeleton in Wyoming in 1900. This specimen was originally named Dynamosaurus imperiosus, in the same paper in which Tyrannosaurus rex was described. Had it not been for page order, Dynamosaurus would have become the official name. The original "Dynamosaurus" material resides in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London.

:In total, Barnum Brown found five Tyrannosaurus partial skeletons. Brown collected his second Tyrannosaurus in 1902 and 1905 in Hell Creek, Montana. This is the holotype used to describe Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn, 1905. In 1941 it was sold to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brown's fourth and largest find, also from Hell Creek, is on display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. :It is the most complete and best preserved juvenile example known to date. Jane has been examined by Jack Horner, Pete Larson, Robert Bakker, Greg Erickson and several other renowned paleontologists, because of the uniqueness of her age. Jane is currently on exhibit at the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Rockford, Illinois. (OK, got these re-referenced - working on it...)


I'd say that's quite a chunk! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, much of this could be confirmed in the book, Sue, which I have. I will have a look.Cas Liber 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to take another look at the prose after my previous object.
    • What does the start of the second sentence of the article mean? "The only universally accepted species is Tyrannosaurus rex from what is now western North America,...". (It means the closely related Tarbosaurus is from Asia, some consider this to be another species of Tyrannosaurus, in shich case Tyrannosaurus is found in Asia and North America, cheers Cas Liber 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • "Some scientists consider the Asian genus Tarbosaurus to be a synonym of Tyrannosaurus, although others continue to separate the genera." "Synonym for". Rather than "separate", do you mean "distinguish"? Is a reference for this assertion required?

(Synonym in taxonomy carries a different meaning to straight grammar. It means the genus is consdered the same (though in this case the species are different. If two scientists name something different things, then the later one loses out and is described as 'a junior synonym of...' However, I think it can be worded better) Cas Liber 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Although other theropods have been identified which rival or exceed T. rex in size,...". Why not simplify it: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded T. rex in size,..."?
    • Having announced the abbreviation, why not use it throughout?
    • "Fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex have been found in North American rock formations, dating to the very end of the Cretaceous Period and it was among the last dinosaurs to exist prior to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Over thirty specimens of T. rex are now known,..." This sentence, like many others here, is not FA material. Abbreviate the name (sometimes it's in italic, sometimes not); the punctuation and sentence structure are poor - move the "dating" clause to after "rex" and nest it in commas; cut "and" and insert a semicolon; "prior to" might be OK in this context, but consider the simpler "before"; "More than" is preferred to "over" by many style manuals, and I can see why (no potential ambiguity, therefore easier to read). Consider using numerals for numbers 10 and above; "have now been identified" at the end of the quote.

This is the lead, and looking down I can see lots of micro-problems in the prose. Can you get a good copy-editor to go through it thoroughly? Tony 13:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Abbreviate the name (sometimes it's in italic, sometimes not);" Tony, can you give some examples of where T. rex or Tyrannosaurus is not in italics, aside from already italicized footnotes? I looked thru and I couldn't find any. The word "tyrannosaur" by itself should not be in italics. As far as abbreviating the name, this cannot always be done. When referring to the genus (which is Tyrannosaurus), we cannot abbreviate it as T. rex (rex is the species-level name, Tyrannosaurus rex is the binomial). In cases where we are specifically speaking of the genus (which is what this article is actually about, despite its possible monotypic status), we can't just always substitute T. rex for Tyrannosaurus or tyrannosaur.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FRUSTRATIONS!!!: I am totally confused & angered by the fact that this article is going to be denied FA status because of minor punctuation complaints such as "comma needed after "the original land owner"?!!! I would bet the world that at least 50% of all FA's have a comma missing! I feel I should go & ask for a review of all FA's based on minor punctuation marks. For example, who cares if "Compared to" is replaced with "Compared with"?! Come on people, the only real problems here are the refs, which are practically fixed & the information, which is also practically fixed. Stop making minor complaints about punctuation & stick to the real issues!! Spawn Man 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to leave it there, I went out to find other ounctuation mistakes in several randomly picked FA's:
 
Leo Kanner ←No period after this sentence. Shocking!→
  • Bhutan ..."Its traditional economy is based on forestry, animal husbandry and subsistence agriculture however these account for less than 50% of a GDP now that Bhutan has become an exporter of hydroelectricity[1]. ←Punctuation after the ref!→
  • I could go on for a while, but I can't be bothered wasting my time searching through 1,000+ FA articles so I can try & get some sense into somebody's head... And yes I do take it personally, I'm moody... Spawn Man 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop taking it personally.

  - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, if Tony & Sandy think they're so much better at copy-editing than everyone else, why the hell don't they do it? Almost all of the WikiProject Dinosaur team has been copyediting & there's always something else to correct. Show us how it's done o' Tony, great copy-editor of yore! Spawn Man 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Tony and Sandy and the rest just want to make sure this article is FA-quality, Spawn Man. And you can see Samsara's been actively adding/reworking the material alongside us, so we've had some help. Don't worry: we'll get there, it just takes time. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpawnMan, please don't be upset, and please don't take it personally.The Asperger syndrome article you pointed out above?That's why it's in WP:FAR.Tony spends an enormous amount of time copyediting for other people.People are here to help, we can't copyedit and reference every Wiki article ourselves, but we can show you what you can do achieve FA.

  Please don't make the mistake of comparing your article to other FAs:featured articles can deteriorate over time, and that's why they end up in review.Sandy 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tyrannosaurus&oldid=1166570624"