| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stahleckeria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I've done an all-over revision of the text in this article. It sounded like it was copied straight out of Babelfish or something. The contents are the same--just edited for the Engrish--with the exception of two sentences once present at the end of the first paragraph, which I have removed and copied to here:
"It is sometimes pictured as a hairy mammal-like reptile, or a bumpy, scaly beast. Dicynodonts are mammal-like reptiles, the opposites of cynodonts (who are very mammal-like)."
The first sentence, because pretty much all therapsids have been depicted with or without scales or hair, not just Stahleckeria, so I can't see why it's being mentioned for this genus specifically. Why not just leave the mention of hair depictions in the main therapsid page(s) and those genera that are actually relevant to the issue. There's currently nothing indicating that Stahleckeria really is relevant, or why it is relevant, so the statement seemed pretty useless.
And I removed the second paragraph because it sounds quite false. Certainly Dicynodonts didn't look as mammalian as cynodonts, but saying they were "opposites" doesn't make any sense--cladistically, what is an "opposite"?! I have a feeling this is more of that dang Engrish but don't know what would be a better substitute. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
weight
editIt seems strange to me that the 3,5m long placerias is estimated at 1t and the 4m long Stahleckeria at 400kg. Is there a reference for it? --188.23.64.71 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)