Abelisauridae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any particular reason that this article is getting loads of edits at the moment? It's great, of course, but just wondering if I'd missed some big collaboration drive or something. Or maybe it's just my imagination. Soo 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, someone could make this a GA if they wanted to, without too much difficulty. J. Spencer 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article has passed Sections 3), 4), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on Sections 1) and 2).
Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.
1) Style
Anatomy section
Taxonomy and systematics
2) Accuracy
Classification sub-section
References
3) Coverage - Article is broad in coverage and remains focused on the topic.
4) Neutrality - Article is writtem without bias.
5) Stability - Article is stable, without major edit wars.
6) Images - Two free, public domain images, and one copyright image, are used. No Fair Use images. Good use of images.
Corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.
Tovojolo ( talk) 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that the the corrections that were required, have been carried, and I note too, the reasons for not carrying out some of the corrections. I do not regard those required corrections as being material. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.
Congratulations,
Tovojolo ( talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the timeline at the end of the article supposed to be like the one on the Tyrannosauridae page, where it displays the time period in which each fossil genus existed, or is it supposed to be a timeline of when each fossil genus was first discovered/named? The former seems to me more useful, and would follow the precedent set in Tyrannosauridae. Perhaps someone with some more familiarity with the material can add a sentence or two of introduction to the timeline to clear this up. Reade ( talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, like the word horsemen indicates a plural noun. The ai is a nominative plural ending, but the id has a meaning independent of number, probably ‘descendant’. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
. . . comes from The Winter (Neuquen, Argentina) rocks of Bajo de la Carpa Formation. The excellent preservation and meaningful information were provided ... to advance knowledge of this group of theropods, the abelisaurs. Viavenator ( "hunter's way") exxoni. Looks like a little over 4 meters. Unfortunately, the skull was not preserved. 68.19.8.105 ( talk) 04:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the mention of Ceratosauridae as a possible subtaxon within Abelisauridae, but have reverted that change as premature as I see that there is a reference to go with it. The fellow who added that information listed a reference for [1] in the edit comment. I wasn't able to add this reference to the page where it belongs, but hope that someone else can. 209.136.39.130 ( talk) 17:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Was this (large) species from N. Africa ever formally described and named? It would be a good addition for the article if there are sources. 50.111.57.100 ( talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
see --> https://scitechdaily.com/the-one-who-causes-fear-extremely-powerful-new-meat-eating-predator-discovered/ <-- it should be listed somewhere - also, is there any firm data on its size at this point? 104.169.24.168 ( talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Abelisauridae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any particular reason that this article is getting loads of edits at the moment? It's great, of course, but just wondering if I'd missed some big collaboration drive or something. Or maybe it's just my imagination. Soo 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, someone could make this a GA if they wanted to, without too much difficulty. J. Spencer 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article has passed Sections 3), 4), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on Sections 1) and 2).
Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.
1) Style
Anatomy section
Taxonomy and systematics
2) Accuracy
Classification sub-section
References
3) Coverage - Article is broad in coverage and remains focused on the topic.
4) Neutrality - Article is writtem without bias.
5) Stability - Article is stable, without major edit wars.
6) Images - Two free, public domain images, and one copyright image, are used. No Fair Use images. Good use of images.
Corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.
Tovojolo ( talk) 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that the the corrections that were required, have been carried, and I note too, the reasons for not carrying out some of the corrections. I do not regard those required corrections as being material. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.
Congratulations,
Tovojolo ( talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the timeline at the end of the article supposed to be like the one on the Tyrannosauridae page, where it displays the time period in which each fossil genus existed, or is it supposed to be a timeline of when each fossil genus was first discovered/named? The former seems to me more useful, and would follow the precedent set in Tyrannosauridae. Perhaps someone with some more familiarity with the material can add a sentence or two of introduction to the timeline to clear this up. Reade ( talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, like the word horsemen indicates a plural noun. The ai is a nominative plural ending, but the id has a meaning independent of number, probably ‘descendant’. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
. . . comes from The Winter (Neuquen, Argentina) rocks of Bajo de la Carpa Formation. The excellent preservation and meaningful information were provided ... to advance knowledge of this group of theropods, the abelisaurs. Viavenator ( "hunter's way") exxoni. Looks like a little over 4 meters. Unfortunately, the skull was not preserved. 68.19.8.105 ( talk) 04:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the mention of Ceratosauridae as a possible subtaxon within Abelisauridae, but have reverted that change as premature as I see that there is a reference to go with it. The fellow who added that information listed a reference for [1] in the edit comment. I wasn't able to add this reference to the page where it belongs, but hope that someone else can. 209.136.39.130 ( talk) 17:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Was this (large) species from N. Africa ever formally described and named? It would be a good addition for the article if there are sources. 50.111.57.100 ( talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
see --> https://scitechdaily.com/the-one-who-causes-fear-extremely-powerful-new-meat-eating-predator-discovered/ <-- it should be listed somewhere - also, is there any firm data on its size at this point? 104.169.24.168 ( talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)