Temnospondyli 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 ( talk • contribs • count) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Good Article review, so please offer me advice. I will do one level 2 section per day. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a good summary of the article.
Needs to stay consistently in the same tense, but other than that it is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesrule3 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems good, no obvious problems.
Again, seems good, no obvious problems.
Could use some cleanup, but not appalling by any means.
Seems good. No problems, except for some minor tense errors, although not bad like the description section was.
I will take a day or two to finish, but I think that this will pass, unless I find something very appalling. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Both types are mentioned, but only rhachitomous vertebrae get a defining description. The corresponding description for stereospondylous vertebrae has been inadvertently omitted.-- Wetman ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the taxobox image wrong in that it shows Eryops with five instead of four fingers? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Temnospondyli. 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://www.burkemuseum.org/pub/Sidor_et_al_2005.pdfPermianWhen 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) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The article as it stands now reads "Using fossil evidence, there are three main theories for the origin of modern amphibians."
I wonder if the right word would be "hypothesis", not "theory". my understanding is that theories are broader and more thoroughly evidenced than hypotheses, the latter often described as tentative. The simple fact that there are currently three "theories" about the origin of amphibians implies that the subject has not yet been studied to the point that we have a single, widely accepteed explanation.
However, I'm unwilling to change the article on Wikipedia just on the basis of a few web pages and my own understanding.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Temnospondyli 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 ( talk • contribs • count) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Good Article review, so please offer me advice. I will do one level 2 section per day. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a good summary of the article.
Needs to stay consistently in the same tense, but other than that it is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesrule3 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems good, no obvious problems.
Again, seems good, no obvious problems.
Could use some cleanup, but not appalling by any means.
Seems good. No problems, except for some minor tense errors, although not bad like the description section was.
I will take a day or two to finish, but I think that this will pass, unless I find something very appalling. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Both types are mentioned, but only rhachitomous vertebrae get a defining description. The corresponding description for stereospondylous vertebrae has been inadvertently omitted.-- Wetman ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the taxobox image wrong in that it shows Eryops with five instead of four fingers? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Temnospondyli. 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://www.burkemuseum.org/pub/Sidor_et_al_2005.pdfPermianWhen 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) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The article as it stands now reads "Using fossil evidence, there are three main theories for the origin of modern amphibians."
I wonder if the right word would be "hypothesis", not "theory". my understanding is that theories are broader and more thoroughly evidenced than hypotheses, the latter often described as tentative. The simple fact that there are currently three "theories" about the origin of amphibians implies that the subject has not yet been studied to the point that we have a single, widely accepteed explanation.
However, I'm unwilling to change the article on Wikipedia just on the basis of a few web pages and my own understanding.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)