Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parasaurolophus

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Parasaurolophus

edit

Submitted for your approval, Parasaurolophus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is extensively cited (40 referenced documents), presents useful images, and covers its topics in detail using the standard dinosaur article format; a particular point of interest is the thorough discussion of the many proposed functions of its hollow crest. External links are germane, the length is comparable to present dinosaur FAs, and, outside of a brief run-in with creationist POV in May, it has been stable. J. Spencer 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • shotgun Support - I'll disclose I'm one of the WP dino collab team but this is on par with the other dino FAs of similar length - I feel it fulfils all criteria well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good overall, but:

  1. There isn't any mention of P. cyrtocristatus in the description section at all.  Done
  2. There's also no comparison to other lambeosaurids.
  3. You have two paragraphs in the description section that start with "Like ____ __________s..." (mixed it up a bit)  Done
  4. "The length of the type specimen of P. walkeri is estimated at 9.5 meters (31 ft). However, its skull and crest are only about 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) long"... a 1.6 meter-long skull, is that supposed to be short? I know you are comparing it to P. tubicen but you might want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like you're downplaying the length of that skull.  Done
  5. On my screen the two pictures in the Description section don't really fit. I realize that all depends on the size of the window and whatnot but consider moving it elsewhere (or adding more text!).  Done
  6. The whole "Species" section seems redundant and out of place to me. Most of that information is just repeated from the previous couple sections or could be placed there instead.
  7. A lot of things are wikilinked multiple times. You really only need to link it the first time. I would go through and remove all of the duplicate wikilinks.
  8. Sometimes there are two spaces between sentences, other times there's only one. I think it's accepted to have only one space, so you might want to go through and fix those where they are found.  Done I think
  9. Some of your sentences are pretty complicated, you might want to see if you can combine clauses and things to make them read simpler. The less commas and semicolons the better in my opinion.
  10. On the other hand, get rid of sentences that start with "but". Use "however" or add them onto the previous sentence.  Done

Just some things to keep you busy, buddy. I'm sure this will pass sooner or later. I wonder if anybody outside the Project will respond... Sheep81 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's no explanation of the etymology of the generic name in the text, is there? I must have missed it if there is. Sheep81 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on the last bit - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the double spaces actually show up? Count me surprised. I think multiple wikilinks can be useful if there's been a large amount of text between them, so you don't have to hunt for the first occurrence if "x" was linked in the lead and then shows up again in the last section, but I'm not going to get into a fight about that. J. Spencer 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made some check-offs, but feel free to de-check. A couple of questions/points on your suggestions, by number:
2. What would you suggest? They're all pretty much the same except for crests.
6. I took out a particularly redundant sentence, but I like the section as a brief summary. Any ideas?
7. I removed a number of them, although I think they should stay when an unfamiliar term, like a formation name, is used again after a break.
9. This is actually restrained for me. Check the edit summary for this difference on another article :). J. Spencer 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) I guess you could compare the crests then, briefly. The only description of the other lambeosaurids is "helmet-crested" which doesn't really tell the reader that much (what kind of helmet?) You could do this briefly in the Classification section.
6) Could you make the Species section a subheading of Classification?
7) Not my preference, but that's fine. I just noticed that things like "juvenile" and "meter" and "plant" were linked multiple times, when to be honest I'm not even sure they need to be linked once.
9) Haha, well I've had to work on it myself a bit also. I tried to read through and make a few changes which made it easier for me personally to read. Sheep81 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral until resolution to problem fixed...→Changed to Support I like the article & think it is one of the project's better articles. However, under the section "Paleobiology" there is a subsection called "Habitat". Unless I'm mistaken, "Habitat" refers to Paleoecology, and Paleoecology & Paleobiology are two entirely different things. "Habitat" should be split off into another section like "Paleobiology" but be named "Paleoecology". Other than that, everything is awesome... Spawn Man 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheep81: Okay, sounds like good ideas. I just took care of #6. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spawn Man: Originally, I thought no, but then I looked at the other FAs and thought about it, and it's a good idea, so I changed it and will make a couple of other alterations in other articles. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the change JS - Changed to support above↑. Spawn Man 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am a member of WP:DINO but mostly I just watch them in case they try and take over WP:BIRD. Good article, though I think they should work on my favourite dinosaur, Corythosaurus. Two minor quibbles, is it duckbill or duck-billed? And first sentence pronounced RP [ˌpæɹəsɔːˈɹɒləfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəsɔˈɹɑləfəs], in common usage is also RP [ˌpæɹəˌsɔːɹəˈləʊfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəˌsɔɹəˈloʊfəs], and meaning "near crested lizard" in reference to Saurolophus).... where is the parenthesis supposed to start? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it both ways, but I've been using duckbill, so I standardized it. The parentheses start after Parasaurolophus; it's a long parenthetical statement because Parks was being clever about Saurolophus and because people pronounce it two different ways. J. Spencer 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when are we going to make WP:BIRD a subproject of WP:DINO anyway? You know how paraphyly angers cladists... it would be safer for everyone. :) Sheep81 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it, or Wikiproject Reptiles will grab us both....Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Copyedits by user:Pgan002 (of the League of Copyeditors) and user:Circeus (who always seems quite thorough) lead me to believe the content is clear and understandable, with removals of redundancies and refining of flowing prose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a member of WP:DINO. Let me just say that I really, really hope some outside editors will weigh in on this article though. Sheep81 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A high quality, thorough article which meets all requirements. Just two minor comments; there is a single redlink to hadrosaurine in the article that could have an article created for it. Also, the description section is a bit choppy, but i understand its hard to expand or link most of those sentences. Great work Kare Kare 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point "hadrosaurine" should redirect to hadrosaur, but oddly enough no one used it before. J. Spencer 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parasaurolophus&oldid=1047032507"