Archaeoraptor 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 article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
and second, because they do not want Olson's attempted taxonomic sabotage to succeed.
I don't think this meets NPOV. It might be the view of "Most paleontologists", but then it should be mentioned that this is their POV. I propose:
and second, because they view Olson's name as "nomenclatural sabotage" and do not want to support it.
This same POV issue is present in the Microraptor article. I don't believe the articles should be merged, since one deals with the fraud while the other deals with a real specimen. However, there should probably be better consistency between the articles (a See Main Article on the Microraptor article would do the trick). - Jokermage 06:48:46, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Turns out there was already a link to Archaeoraptor in the text. I reworded the sentence and added the Main Article link, for style consistancy and clarity. - Jokermage 06:39:22, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
Why is this article under "Archaeological forgery"? Archaeologists deal with cultural and not natural remains, i.e remains of people. It is a common misconception that archaeologists are all interested in anything fossil or bone, and that they concern themselves with dinosaur remains as well as human remains. Dinosaurs are for palaeontologists, human remains for the archaeologist (there are, after all, a few million years between the two species). I therefore suggest the article be removed from the archaeological forgery category. -- Grumpy444grumpy 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Storrs Olson not only failed to establish Archaeoraptor liaoningensis as a new taxon; his designation of the Microraptor holotype as the lectotype of Archaeoraptor is not valid. [1]
1. http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Jul/msg00009.html
I'm not an archeology expert, but two items in this article do not make sense to me:
1) The following passage appears self-contradictory:
Is the second fossil Archeovolans, or Yanornis? Are these names synonymous, or were there three fossils involved?
2)For me, the article does not adequately explain what Olson's alleged motivation was in naming the tail portion "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis." Am I correct in my interpretation that he disputes the dinosaur-bird connection, so he was trying to ensure that the clearly "dinosaur" part of the chimeric specimen, rather than the "bird" portion bore the name "archeoraptor," which would imply a relationship to dinosaurs with "raptor" in their names? But "raptor" is obviously a term applied to groups of birds too. I think this needs to be explained more clearly.
Also I added a low-res image of the first two pages of the NG article. I think this is legit fair use, and helpful to the article.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeoraptor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Ruslik ( talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some comments:
1) The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs
2) Some statements need citations. I marked them with
citation needed tags.
3) At the end of the first paragraph in 'The Dinosaur Museum Journal' there is an unformated ref (a web link). Please, format it using <ref></ref> tags.
4) The first ref in 'References' lacks journal name.
5) The book 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight' of Czerkases should be added to the reflist and cited where necessary.
6) In the last section I read "This action prevented the tainted name "Archaeoraptor" from entering the paleornithological literature by attaching it to the part of the chimeric specimen which was unlikely to be classified under Aves, rather than the portion which was later shown to represent a true bird species.". Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
7) If possible, include an image of the fossils.
Ruslik ( talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some observations:
:1) Please, take my point 1) seriously. I meant two real and long paragraphs. I did not mean the rudimentary paragraph made of two short sentences. Taking into account that the article was expanded, three paragraphs may be a good idea.
:2) I found several additional statements that need citations.
<s?>:3) Ref.7 lacks any information about punlisher and/or journal. It is not possible to find it.
Ruslik ( talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think now the reached GA level, and I am going to pass it. Ruslik ( talk) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Firsfron, don't you feel that the intro sentence is a run on, and that it could be made into three succinct sentences? You know, just so that there aren't, like, six subjects in each sentence. Jbrougham ( talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going on a business trip tomorrow and may not have time to address further issues. I do apologize for leaving everyone in the lurch. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There are some difficulties involved in determining what Olson exactly accomplished. The normal interpretation would be that his attempt was unsuccesful merely because he presumed that "Archaeoraptor" had been named already. I refer to the relevant ICZN articles:
I am aware that Olson denied the correctness of this interpretation, but I don't have the papers in which he does so. Could anyone provide this information?-- MWAK ( talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me how the section about their travelling show is related to the Archaeoraptor controversy? It's interesting, yes, but doesn't seem too relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.223 ( talk • contribs)
Take a look at for example the Kabwe cranium article, it seems that articles about specific fossil hominid specimens have a "fossil infobox", should that maybe be used on articles about other specific fossil specimens, including Archaeo, as well? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. What happened with the travelling exhibit? The article says, that "Through March 2009 the show is scheduled for the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science in California." However, this museum has been closed for financial reasons, so I think that the exhibit had to move somewhere else. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is a GA one, but I see several lines apparently showing bias. Although evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community, showing that there is no other possibility other than evolution is not neutrality.
I don't think this article retains a GA status. 110.55.3.22 ( talk) 05:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"However, contrary to the Piltdown Man, 'Archaeoraptor' was not a deliberate hoax."
Does the cited source really say this - and if it does, what exactly does it mean? 85.255.233.216 ( talk) 19:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I added a section to Travelling Exhibit about its inclusion in a recent exhibition about which I intend to write an article. Do we need the outdated box any more? TomBarker23 ( talk) 14:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Archaeoraptor 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 article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
and second, because they do not want Olson's attempted taxonomic sabotage to succeed.
I don't think this meets NPOV. It might be the view of "Most paleontologists", but then it should be mentioned that this is their POV. I propose:
and second, because they view Olson's name as "nomenclatural sabotage" and do not want to support it.
This same POV issue is present in the Microraptor article. I don't believe the articles should be merged, since one deals with the fraud while the other deals with a real specimen. However, there should probably be better consistency between the articles (a See Main Article on the Microraptor article would do the trick). - Jokermage 06:48:46, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Turns out there was already a link to Archaeoraptor in the text. I reworded the sentence and added the Main Article link, for style consistancy and clarity. - Jokermage 06:39:22, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
Why is this article under "Archaeological forgery"? Archaeologists deal with cultural and not natural remains, i.e remains of people. It is a common misconception that archaeologists are all interested in anything fossil or bone, and that they concern themselves with dinosaur remains as well as human remains. Dinosaurs are for palaeontologists, human remains for the archaeologist (there are, after all, a few million years between the two species). I therefore suggest the article be removed from the archaeological forgery category. -- Grumpy444grumpy 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Storrs Olson not only failed to establish Archaeoraptor liaoningensis as a new taxon; his designation of the Microraptor holotype as the lectotype of Archaeoraptor is not valid. [1]
1. http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Jul/msg00009.html
I'm not an archeology expert, but two items in this article do not make sense to me:
1) The following passage appears self-contradictory:
Is the second fossil Archeovolans, or Yanornis? Are these names synonymous, or were there three fossils involved?
2)For me, the article does not adequately explain what Olson's alleged motivation was in naming the tail portion "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis." Am I correct in my interpretation that he disputes the dinosaur-bird connection, so he was trying to ensure that the clearly "dinosaur" part of the chimeric specimen, rather than the "bird" portion bore the name "archeoraptor," which would imply a relationship to dinosaurs with "raptor" in their names? But "raptor" is obviously a term applied to groups of birds too. I think this needs to be explained more clearly.
Also I added a low-res image of the first two pages of the NG article. I think this is legit fair use, and helpful to the article.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeoraptor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Ruslik ( talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some comments:
1) The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs
2) Some statements need citations. I marked them with
citation needed tags.
3) At the end of the first paragraph in 'The Dinosaur Museum Journal' there is an unformated ref (a web link). Please, format it using <ref></ref> tags.
4) The first ref in 'References' lacks journal name.
5) The book 'Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight' of Czerkases should be added to the reflist and cited where necessary.
6) In the last section I read "This action prevented the tainted name "Archaeoraptor" from entering the paleornithological literature by attaching it to the part of the chimeric specimen which was unlikely to be classified under Aves, rather than the portion which was later shown to represent a true bird species.". Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
7) If possible, include an image of the fossils.
Ruslik ( talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Some observations:
:1) Please, take my point 1) seriously. I meant two real and long paragraphs. I did not mean the rudimentary paragraph made of two short sentences. Taking into account that the article was expanded, three paragraphs may be a good idea.
:2) I found several additional statements that need citations.
<s?>:3) Ref.7 lacks any information about punlisher and/or journal. It is not possible to find it.
Ruslik ( talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think now the reached GA level, and I am going to pass it. Ruslik ( talk) 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Firsfron, don't you feel that the intro sentence is a run on, and that it could be made into three succinct sentences? You know, just so that there aren't, like, six subjects in each sentence. Jbrougham ( talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going on a business trip tomorrow and may not have time to address further issues. I do apologize for leaving everyone in the lurch. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There are some difficulties involved in determining what Olson exactly accomplished. The normal interpretation would be that his attempt was unsuccesful merely because he presumed that "Archaeoraptor" had been named already. I refer to the relevant ICZN articles:
I am aware that Olson denied the correctness of this interpretation, but I don't have the papers in which he does so. Could anyone provide this information?-- MWAK ( talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me how the section about their travelling show is related to the Archaeoraptor controversy? It's interesting, yes, but doesn't seem too relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.223 ( talk • contribs)
Take a look at for example the Kabwe cranium article, it seems that articles about specific fossil hominid specimens have a "fossil infobox", should that maybe be used on articles about other specific fossil specimens, including Archaeo, as well? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. What happened with the travelling exhibit? The article says, that "Through March 2009 the show is scheduled for the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science in California." However, this museum has been closed for financial reasons, so I think that the exhibit had to move somewhere else. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is a GA one, but I see several lines apparently showing bias. Although evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community, showing that there is no other possibility other than evolution is not neutrality.
I don't think this article retains a GA status. 110.55.3.22 ( talk) 05:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"However, contrary to the Piltdown Man, 'Archaeoraptor' was not a deliberate hoax."
Does the cited source really say this - and if it does, what exactly does it mean? 85.255.233.216 ( talk) 19:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I added a section to Travelling Exhibit about its inclusion in a recent exhibition about which I intend to write an article. Do we need the outdated box any more? TomBarker23 ( talk) 14:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)