Wikipedia:Peer review/Struthiomimus/archive1

Struthiomimus edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I desire feedback on how to improve the article. Comments on grammar, layout, clarity, etc., are appreciated. I already understand that the lead needs expanding. I am not truly interested in an automated review.

Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: What is there looks pretty good, but it needs some more work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but the history seems to be only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - this is not the case now. Please see WP:LEAD
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several dinosur FAs including Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus that may be good models.
The article needs many more references - for example Struthiomimus, being a member of Coelurosauria, probably had feathers. needs a ref (and is a very short paragraph and should be combined with another or perhaps exapnded). The "Popular culture" section has NO refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Watch for jargon - some is needed, but could perhaps be explained better (like Its feet were elongate, and the metatarsals were tightly appressed, with three toes tipped by claws with very slight curvature.[6] - what does appressed mean?) See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Ruhrfisch. Your comments and thoughts are appreciated. I can certainly cite the uncited feather sentence, but aside from the pop culture section, which may be jettisoned at some point, everything is cited. I'm not sure where the extra references would go. I can certainly tone down the science jargon; this is exactly what I wanted: confirmation that the tone of the article was too scientific for a layman (I felt so myself, but wanted another opinion). The Struthiomimus article was modeled after Gorgosaurus and other theropod FAs. The history of the genus is explained in more than just the lead; it's here. Thanks again for your review! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the feathers and pop culture I do not recall any other uncited material. Assuming it can be cited with WP:RS I kind of like the pop culture stuff (as long as it is not a cruft magnet). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]