This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article has one of the stranges, and IMO cluttered aesthetically, taxoboxes I've seen in the TOL project and seems to violate many of the taxobox guidelines. For example, the taxobox is meant to be a quick overview to be expounded upon in the text, much like the intro, and there fore should not contain in-line citations. Anything present in the taxobox should be discussed in depth and sourced in the body of the article.
Most taxoboxes do not break down time periods beyond epoch, as this can be confusing for non-technically proficient people.
Years alone should not be linked, per wiki guidelines, only complete dates.
We have an image review now governing all paleo images, so including an inaccurate image with a long description of the inaccuracies should not be kosher. The image should be removed until fixed.
"Diversity"--I've never seen this field used before. Why not "Genera"?
Odontopterygiformes - If it's monotypic, why isn't the article on the highest level taxon, with the others as redirects, as in Therizinosaur or Titanosaur?
Just wanted to raise these pedantic taxobox issues here for discussion, as I'd made the changes then had them reverted. Overall, many prehistoric bird articles stick out like a sore thumb among other paleo articles on wiki as they seem to be using a very non-standard format, even in things like structure, heading, tone, and reference/coding style. No love for at least some standardization so visitors know what to look for and how to find it? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
One other concern: the reference style. Footnotes seem to be deprecated in most wiki article,s as they don't make much sense. Any commentary worthy of a footnote should simply be included in the text. Footnoting an abbreviated cite also makes little sense. As a user, when I click a citation, I don't want to read just the author and year, then dig through another section's index of Works Cited to find the full reference. In-line citations should include the whole citation, and non-cite footnotes should be left to the body text. This seems to be stone-cold requirements by most FAC reviewers, so if this article is ever to be featured, not doing this kind of formatting early on would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Paleogene representatives of the Pelagornithidae cover a size range from medium-sized (O. toliapica) to very large (D. emuinus) species, which probably had a wingspan above 4 m. By contrast, all Neogene Pelagornithidae had a giant size, reaching wingspans of 5–6 m (Olson 1985). Most likely, giant size evolved only once within bony-toothed birds..."
"Howard and Walter considered, from their study of the cranium, that P. stirtoni is smaller than the other Odontopterygiasic]..."
"... its damaged state makes many areas of its anatomy extremely difficult to interpret."
"The group is in dire need of a comprehensive and sensible revision..."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pelagornithidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://deltrac.com/archaeology/pollack/pdf/pollack_144-146.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.svpca.org/years/2000_portsmouth/abstracts.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/studentsupport/foundationdirect/staff/staffpubs/filetodownload,60059,en.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has one of the stranges, and IMO cluttered aesthetically, taxoboxes I've seen in the TOL project and seems to violate many of the taxobox guidelines. For example, the taxobox is meant to be a quick overview to be expounded upon in the text, much like the intro, and there fore should not contain in-line citations. Anything present in the taxobox should be discussed in depth and sourced in the body of the article.
Most taxoboxes do not break down time periods beyond epoch, as this can be confusing for non-technically proficient people.
Years alone should not be linked, per wiki guidelines, only complete dates.
We have an image review now governing all paleo images, so including an inaccurate image with a long description of the inaccuracies should not be kosher. The image should be removed until fixed.
"Diversity"--I've never seen this field used before. Why not "Genera"?
Odontopterygiformes - If it's monotypic, why isn't the article on the highest level taxon, with the others as redirects, as in Therizinosaur or Titanosaur?
Just wanted to raise these pedantic taxobox issues here for discussion, as I'd made the changes then had them reverted. Overall, many prehistoric bird articles stick out like a sore thumb among other paleo articles on wiki as they seem to be using a very non-standard format, even in things like structure, heading, tone, and reference/coding style. No love for at least some standardization so visitors know what to look for and how to find it? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
One other concern: the reference style. Footnotes seem to be deprecated in most wiki article,s as they don't make much sense. Any commentary worthy of a footnote should simply be included in the text. Footnoting an abbreviated cite also makes little sense. As a user, when I click a citation, I don't want to read just the author and year, then dig through another section's index of Works Cited to find the full reference. In-line citations should include the whole citation, and non-cite footnotes should be left to the body text. This seems to be stone-cold requirements by most FAC reviewers, so if this article is ever to be featured, not doing this kind of formatting early on would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Paleogene representatives of the Pelagornithidae cover a size range from medium-sized (O. toliapica) to very large (D. emuinus) species, which probably had a wingspan above 4 m. By contrast, all Neogene Pelagornithidae had a giant size, reaching wingspans of 5–6 m (Olson 1985). Most likely, giant size evolved only once within bony-toothed birds..."
"Howard and Walter considered, from their study of the cranium, that P. stirtoni is smaller than the other Odontopterygiasic]..."
"... its damaged state makes many areas of its anatomy extremely difficult to interpret."
"The group is in dire need of a comprehensive and sensible revision..."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pelagornithidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://deltrac.com/archaeology/pollack/pdf/pollack_144-146.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.svpca.org/years/2000_portsmouth/abstracts.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/studentsupport/foundationdirect/staff/staffpubs/filetodownload,60059,en.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)