Article(
|
visual edit |
history)·Article talk(
|
history)·Watch
Delisting is not a common process over at
WP:DINO, but since the Amphicoelias article was left in a rather unique situation of becoming a GA and then losing something like half its content once Maraapunisaurus was named as a separate genus. Thus, the contents of the article on their own constitute something that was never considered to be on the level of GA. Demotion is, then, appropriate, unless someone feels like taking up the task of expanding the article in the near future.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Perhaps merely an issue of organization, but the text jumps all over the place and does not make for a well flowing read regarding the different species, what they are, and what the actual animal was in terms of our modern understanding.
Doesn't seem to break the rules of any of these per say, but it worthy of note that half of the description section is made up of historical information, breaking the very concept of separating info into sections.
Not even close, this is the main issue. No dedicated history section despite history being the primary topic at hand with this often ignored species, and the description section is absolutely paultry once you remove the historical information.
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The actual information on its classification in the classification section is mostly on the idea it's just Diplodocus, with merely the unsourced statement and a cladogram exploring it as its own taxon.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
No images stand out as problematic, but it's relevant to note they're pretty low in number.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article passes a reasonable amount of criteria but it's so far from passing in terms of content coverage that it doesn't have any place remaining as a GA in my eyes.
Gotta admit I got busy and totally forgot. I did manage to get the history and description mainly fixed up, so its just classification left. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}06:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Article(
|
visual edit |
history)·Article talk(
|
history)·Watch
Delisting is not a common process over at
WP:DINO, but since the Amphicoelias article was left in a rather unique situation of becoming a GA and then losing something like half its content once Maraapunisaurus was named as a separate genus. Thus, the contents of the article on their own constitute something that was never considered to be on the level of GA. Demotion is, then, appropriate, unless someone feels like taking up the task of expanding the article in the near future.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Perhaps merely an issue of organization, but the text jumps all over the place and does not make for a well flowing read regarding the different species, what they are, and what the actual animal was in terms of our modern understanding.
Doesn't seem to break the rules of any of these per say, but it worthy of note that half of the description section is made up of historical information, breaking the very concept of separating info into sections.
Not even close, this is the main issue. No dedicated history section despite history being the primary topic at hand with this often ignored species, and the description section is absolutely paultry once you remove the historical information.
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The actual information on its classification in the classification section is mostly on the idea it's just Diplodocus, with merely the unsourced statement and a cladogram exploring it as its own taxon.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
No images stand out as problematic, but it's relevant to note they're pretty low in number.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article passes a reasonable amount of criteria but it's so far from passing in terms of content coverage that it doesn't have any place remaining as a GA in my eyes.
Gotta admit I got busy and totally forgot. I did manage to get the history and description mainly fixed up, so its just classification left. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}06:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply