This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thescelosaurus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Thescelosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2013. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is well-written, but I have a few suggestions that should be fixed before I pass it as GA:
These are really basic to fix, and I'll put this article on hold until they are fixed. Let me know on my talk page when they are fixed or if you have any other questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That was very quick, good job. I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Be sure to keep the article at its same quality, and include all new information with proper sources and citation. Consider expanding the information in the Miscellaneous section, perhaps detailing the findings of the math problem or find some other info pertaining to the subject to include. -- Nehrams2020 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article looks so good it is hard to figure what it needs. I figure making the lead into two paras with the second maybe expanding a little on the heart thing is probably the best bet. Also, all other dino FAs have a Description section after the lead.....seems a shame to split it up though cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: I blued the formation links cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I think that Thescelosaurus is a good dinosaur, I mean that it is very interesting.-- Dinonerd4488 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Nominated February 17th, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
OK folks, moving closer.....
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got an idea. We've had good luck with veteran outside editors with the last few FAs, but I don't want to drag in the same people every time. Any ideas for a good third party? J. Spencer 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: Just left a note on Marskell's talk page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just added the Russell stuff, so I think I've got everything in there that would be pertinent and useful that I've ever heard of. J. Spencer 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to have a peek at this one, and my first concern regards over-referencing. Not just each sentence, but each clause is often cited. Where two different cites are used in one sentence, can one be chosen? Can double references be reduced to only those points that are potentially controversial or startling? Marskell 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Small ornithopods that may have been Thescelosaurus were seen in the last episode of Walking with Dinosaurs, being a prey species for Dromaeosaurus. Should that have mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 ( talk) 01:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to see what's what and where in the current image, perhaps this [1] one is clearer? FunkMonk ( talk) 03:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Today I'll be hovering over this article to revert any vandalization anybody else misses, just a heads up to revert any vandalism I don't. -- Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article make sno mention of this, but it seems skin-impressions are known from this genus? This old DML post [2] suggests it looked like that of a plucked chicken, leaving some kind of fuzz possible, and I came across this photo [3] of a skin impression from the side of one specimen at the MOR [4], doesn't look like scales? But is there anything about skin in the published literature? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Starting to look into modernizing this article that definitely doesn't meet current FA standards, and one thing I noticed was a complete contradiction on the article's part. The description section says that we have no idea what it's integument was like, but the discovery, history, and species section had a picture of what the caption claims are skin impressions. Okay, so the description section is wrong, right? Update it and move on. The issue is that the photo is sourced to flickr, where the claim of skin impressions is made, and I can't find any reference to it off a quick google search that doesn't lead back here. Google's scholar didn't turn up any indication it's mentioned in the literature. So it not having skin impressions may well be wrong, but we have no reliable source what is shown in the picture is a skin impression. Integument is something that has to be mentioned due to the epidermis and armor suggestions, so we can't just dodge the issue entirely. Any suggestions on what to do? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 02:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As part of the newly established effort in the WikiProject to maintain dated FAs and GAs, I figured I'd finally get around to polishing this old stinker up. You can see my ideas and progress over in my sandbox, but anyone sees any big issues or omissions I don't seem to be aware of, any feedback or help is appreciated. The lead, classification, and palaeobiology sections are the ones that seem most in need of attention, so any issues in the other sections might be more likely to fly under my radar.
On the topic, once improvement is finished, should I just go for putting this up for Peer Review, or could it be justifiable to do an FAR? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've placed notes about things that need improving throughout the version of the article in my sandbox. Anything not there is something I've missed. Time to move on to the real work... Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thescelosaurus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Thescelosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2013. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is well-written, but I have a few suggestions that should be fixed before I pass it as GA:
These are really basic to fix, and I'll put this article on hold until they are fixed. Let me know on my talk page when they are fixed or if you have any other questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That was very quick, good job. I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Be sure to keep the article at its same quality, and include all new information with proper sources and citation. Consider expanding the information in the Miscellaneous section, perhaps detailing the findings of the math problem or find some other info pertaining to the subject to include. -- Nehrams2020 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article looks so good it is hard to figure what it needs. I figure making the lead into two paras with the second maybe expanding a little on the heart thing is probably the best bet. Also, all other dino FAs have a Description section after the lead.....seems a shame to split it up though cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: I blued the formation links cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I think that Thescelosaurus is a good dinosaur, I mean that it is very interesting.-- Dinonerd4488 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Nominated February 17th, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
OK folks, moving closer.....
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got an idea. We've had good luck with veteran outside editors with the last few FAs, but I don't want to drag in the same people every time. Any ideas for a good third party? J. Spencer 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: Just left a note on Marskell's talk page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just added the Russell stuff, so I think I've got everything in there that would be pertinent and useful that I've ever heard of. J. Spencer 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to have a peek at this one, and my first concern regards over-referencing. Not just each sentence, but each clause is often cited. Where two different cites are used in one sentence, can one be chosen? Can double references be reduced to only those points that are potentially controversial or startling? Marskell 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Small ornithopods that may have been Thescelosaurus were seen in the last episode of Walking with Dinosaurs, being a prey species for Dromaeosaurus. Should that have mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 ( talk) 01:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to see what's what and where in the current image, perhaps this [1] one is clearer? FunkMonk ( talk) 03:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Today I'll be hovering over this article to revert any vandalization anybody else misses, just a heads up to revert any vandalism I don't. -- Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don't understand the many dinosaurs aren't what they used to be. ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article make sno mention of this, but it seems skin-impressions are known from this genus? This old DML post [2] suggests it looked like that of a plucked chicken, leaving some kind of fuzz possible, and I came across this photo [3] of a skin impression from the side of one specimen at the MOR [4], doesn't look like scales? But is there anything about skin in the published literature? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Starting to look into modernizing this article that definitely doesn't meet current FA standards, and one thing I noticed was a complete contradiction on the article's part. The description section says that we have no idea what it's integument was like, but the discovery, history, and species section had a picture of what the caption claims are skin impressions. Okay, so the description section is wrong, right? Update it and move on. The issue is that the photo is sourced to flickr, where the claim of skin impressions is made, and I can't find any reference to it off a quick google search that doesn't lead back here. Google's scholar didn't turn up any indication it's mentioned in the literature. So it not having skin impressions may well be wrong, but we have no reliable source what is shown in the picture is a skin impression. Integument is something that has to be mentioned due to the epidermis and armor suggestions, so we can't just dodge the issue entirely. Any suggestions on what to do? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 02:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As part of the newly established effort in the WikiProject to maintain dated FAs and GAs, I figured I'd finally get around to polishing this old stinker up. You can see my ideas and progress over in my sandbox, but anyone sees any big issues or omissions I don't seem to be aware of, any feedback or help is appreciated. The lead, classification, and palaeobiology sections are the ones that seem most in need of attention, so any issues in the other sections might be more likely to fly under my radar.
On the topic, once improvement is finished, should I just go for putting this up for Peer Review, or could it be justifiable to do an FAR? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've placed notes about things that need improving throughout the version of the article in my sandbox. Anything not there is something I've missed. Time to move on to the real work... Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)