Talk:Deinocheirus/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by FunkMonk in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll notify co-nominator IJReid! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
rather than say " is a genus of large ornithomimosaurian dinosaur", how about " is a genus of large ostrich dinosaur" - no loss of accuracy and much more accessible.- Alright, though it may become a problem if changed in the rest of the article, as we have to distinguish between ornithomimidae and ornithomimosauria, which can both be referred to this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- ....and a few other bones of this animal were first discovered... --> "of this animal" redundant.
which was to include the supposedly related genera Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus- I'd add a footnote here (using the efn|1= format) to clarify current thoughts on their (distant) relationship- Added a bit to the article, since it turns out it actually had a bit of support subsequently, and was not just a dead end... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Be good if one of the sources used the term convergent evolution, which could be slotted in, but no bother if not....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Added a bit to the article, since it turns out it actually had a bit of support subsequently, and was not just a dead end... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Map template file to be noted on File:Map mn umnugobi aimag.png?Spell out file source on File:Deinocheirus mirificus forelimb.png (not just link)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall: