Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus/FAC1

Tyrannosaurus rex edit

Self-nom. (a little bit) This article is very detailed and informative while not being too wordy for non-scientists. Covers scientific debates as well as the T-rex's image in popular culture. Presents all sides of all debates. Article is well-refrenced. The article has had two peer reviews, one recently. Banana04131 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Wackymacs 19:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks comprensive, but I think there should be added something about geographical distribution. Currently you have to read between the lines to find out that fossils are restricted to North America Fornadan (t) 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added a sentance to beginning of Discoveries section (forgot to sign) Banana04131 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last peer review -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even older peer review just in case. . . Banana04131
Object All the internet refs need to be footnotes. Also the text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis. The T. rex in Jurassic Park section has absolutely no reason to be there, it needs to go. This article has nothing to do with Jurassic Park, thats like using the Great White Shark article to disscuss the shark in Jaws or the RMS Titanic to disscuss the 1997's Titanic. Also Other giant theropods section uses Jurassic Park 3 as an example, again using a film as an example is inappropriate.

Biology has mostly minor style issues. Sometimes it feels like an essay, but since most everything about a dinosaur is speculation its not that big of a deal. I'm mainly concerned with things this sentence in Predator, Scavenger or Both? section: "But why be so well armed if T. rex were a scavenger?", asking a question for it to be answered later in the article is not encyclopedic. ~~I'm not thrilled with the subsection using questions as titles either for the same reason.~~ Its a good article and its close, but not there yet. MechBrowman 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the sections so they are not questions, which I disliked as well. I have also removed the Jurassic Park paragraph since it is not needed. I might take a look at copy-editing the Biology section myself a bit later on. — Wackymacs 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not have information on the creator. This is a violation of the license. --Carnildo 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object. While the science is comprehensive, T-rex's image in popular culture is scant. This probably deserves an article of its own (and not just Jurrasic park) with a summary in this article. -- Samuel Wantman 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article neglect the "Popular culture" section. And why is there a "Other tyrannosaurids" and "Other giant theropods" sections? shouldn't they respectively belong to Tyrannosauridae and Theropoda? CG 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, prose is not clear enough in places. In particular, the second paragraph of Discoveries ("In 2000, there was a controversy regarding its name...") is very opaque to those of us unfamiliar with these matters. Which June were these discoveries made in South Dakota - 1892, 1900, 2000? Exactly how could the 2000 discoveries possibly have caused a fossil named in 1905 to be renamed, if the rules hadn't prevented it anyway? This paragraph needs clarifying badly, and perhaps even rewriting with a clearer, better-organised argument. — Haeleth Talk 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, my criticisms from the peer review still stand, also there should be one consistent referencing system applied to the article with the html links in text given full citations for tracability.--nixie 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very compreshensive.--Smerk