Wikipedia:Peer review/Tyrannosaurus rex/archive2

Tyrannosaurus rex edit

non-self nomination This article is brilliantly written and has had a peer review before. Tons of information at a very high standard. I believe the article is now ready to be FA! Comments? Banana04131 01:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would remove the many red links that are in the article.~~ Ramallite ^(talk) 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I guess this no longer makes it a complete non-self nomination. Anyway, any more comments? Suggestions? Banana04131 01:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the text looks too teleological, and some may be original research, but I don't think this really mars the article.
Some statements may be outdated (I'm not too sure). For example, is it the most recent evidence that suggests that T.Rex wasn't a fast runner? I though that was older opinion, while modern opinion states that it may indeed have been faster than previously thought.
What does "although probably not as warm blooded as modern mammals" mean? Are there different degrees of warm-bloodedness? Similarly, what does "the creature's homeothermic strategy might have changed at times in its life cycle" mean?
Comments like "temporarily supporting the front body like the struts of a detatched truck trailer" might be a bit en-encyclopedic, it just comes out at you from nowhere.
The second half of the article seems much better written scientifically, while the first half has a more 'general public' feel.
I've done a few minor changes here and there but welcome any comments or complaints. I think it's great and almost there, just needs a bit more tweaking.

Ramallite ^(talk) 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get too it! Banana04131 03:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, is their any thing that struck you as sounding like original reasearch? Banana04131 04:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind these are just my thoughts, and you don't necessarily have to agree with them. Examples of original research may include:

"T. rex will very likely remain a subject of ongoing scientific research and popular culture."
"It should be remembered that most modern day carnivores are not exclusively scavengers or active predators. This was probably true of T. rex as well." (This one may or may not be OR)
"Powerful forelimbs are not necessary for all living predators, crocodiles and birds of prey like the Secretary Bird being prime examples. "

There are many other examples where it's difficult to say whether these statements are sourced information or are coming from an editor who him/herself has a good knowledge of the material (which would be considered original research). Like I said before, these are not things that mar the article and should probably stay as they make it more interesting, but it would be something to keep in mind in case anybody else objects here on this page. I'll continue tweaking it as time permits.Ramallite ^(talk) 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I traced the warm-or-cold blooded paragraph back to the editor who wrote it over a year ago. I have left a note on their talk page but if they don't get back to me in a bit, I'll ask the Reference Desk. Banana04131 00:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move this FAC. Banana04131 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]