Kentrosaurus 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. Review: July 6, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Kentrosaurus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
I've consolidated all reference data in the references section, sorted alphabetically by first author, so that the main text only contains call-outs. This helps in not creating duplicate entries, and it allows calling out specific sections (e.g. pages) within a reference in one instance but not in another without it appearing several times in the list. To that end I have added a NOTES section. The way to call out specific pages etc. is via this tag: {{#tag:ref|PAGE in TEXT_NAME_OF_REF<ref name=REFNAME/>|group="upper-alpha"}}, where PAGE is the element you wish to cite (e.g., "page 223"), TEXT_NAME_OF_REF is the reference name as you want it to read (e.g., "Paul (2010)") and REFNAME is the name given to the reference in the References section (e.g. "Paul2010").
Please stick to these rules; when bringing Plateosaurus to FA status it helped a LOT in avoiding chaos with the references. HMallison ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I started this article before I had an account and am pleased to see that it's evolved into something far more complete. Any chance of us finding a picture in the public domain? Agentsoo 15:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Done! Took this piccy in 1995 at the really cool museum in Berlin Cas Liber 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the spike really over the hips? It's more commonly placed over the shoulders (though of course there might have been something more recent I don't know about. Also this paragraph:
...isn't logically sound, and needs a reference or a re-write. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the constant comparisons to Stegosaurus. The article reads like the differences between Kentrosaurus and Stegosaurus, not like an article about the animal itself. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Any links appropriate to this cryptid? - Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu - which some cryptozoologists think may be a Kentrosaurus - like stegasaur -- ZayZayEM ( talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
quite some important stuff has re-appeared. Also, "An almost-complete skeleton was at one time recovered and mounted in the Humboldt Museum, of the University of Berlin but the museum was bombed during World War II and many specimens were lost." makes it sound
1) as if the mount was gone
2) as if it was a complete animal that was mounted. HMallison ( talk) 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds much better now ;) I'll find the reference (Galton 19something) for the cranial material that was found again in some drawer in the basement ASPA. Also, next month (after a conference in Berlin) I will have time to go through the material and see what is still there, what is in Tübingen, and what is still missing or destroyed. I can also list, from Janensch 1925, what is real in the mount - most of the back and ribs is not from the 'nearly complete individual' (which is not really very complete). HMallison ( talk) 11:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC) added info on the mount, as well as references. btw: the Museum für Naturkunde is now part fo the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, and no loger of the Humboldt-University. Once I find time... HMallison ( talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
hey, if us guys actually working on the specimens didn't know, that'd be really really embarrassing ;)I'll update as I go along in my research. Spikes placement also needs a few comment. HMallison ( talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Part 1: I am revamping the entire article, trying to get away from the Kentro-is-an-almost-stegosaurus style, too. Please feel free to fix typos etc. in the new sections, or alter the old ones, which I will consult for the new version constantly. HMallison ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Kentrosaurus longispinus comes from a Dinogeorge article (see here for a brief discussion). Having said that, I think the only other people who really took it up were dinosaur buffs on the Internet. J. Spencer ( talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Under German copyright laws, only the exterior, not the interior of museums, is in the public domain. While taking photographs inside is usually allowed when not using a tripod, and sometimes even when doing so, it is always explicitly forbidden (unless the museum expressly permits it) to use the images for anything but "private use". Releasing images for commercial use is not covered. Thus, I am removing all questionable images for now. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin has, to my certain knowledge, not released anything for use on wikipedia. HMallison ( talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yippee! Permission granted :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
draft is here: User:HMallison/DraftKentrosaurus
The article currently reads " Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania, dated to the Kimmeridgian stage, between about 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma (million years ago)." There does not appear to be a citation backing up this age range. Furthermore, the Kimmeridgian stage is dated from 157.3 ± 1.0 Ma to 152.1 ± 0.9 Ma according to the current official ICS timescale. [4] Is there a verifiable source for the 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma age range? If so, shouldn't the range of Kentrosaurus be summarized as mid Kimmeridgian through early Tithonian? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reid,iain james ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. I've decided to take up this review, and hope that it can make it to FA.First off:
That's it for now, in two days (I have a soccer tournament today and tomorrow) I will provide many more comments. Good work and good luck - IJReid ( talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Other than these minor quibbles, Kentrosaurus seems ready to pass. I have not checked the references, although on the basis of Mallison's rewrite draft, which I trust as he is likely to get the sources, I think the citations are at least adequate. IJReid ( talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After promoting the article I came across some things to add, that do not affect the overall quality of the article. @ LittleJerry:@ HMallison: Mallison published a new article, found here, that can add more info to the article. It is on the affect of osteoderms on the centre of gravity. It is also under a CC-By Attribution 3.0 license, with one figure on Kentrosaurus with different possible osteoderm arrangements. I think some of the info can be added to the size and posture section, and the image might be uploaded, although HMallison might want to do the uploading himself. IJReid ( talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says "because both the spellings and the pronunciations are different (Centrosaurus is pronounced with a soft C), both Doryphorosaurus and Kentrurosaurus are unneeded replacement names". This might be true for the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, but in Classical Latin pronunciation the letter C always sounds like /k/ (there's no "soft C"). Kentrosaurus and Centrosaurus sound the same to anyone speaking Classical Latin, which is the reason why two replacement names were proposed. Isn't this justified? I'm not saying Wikipedia or anyone else should stop using Kentrosaurus and start calling this genus Kentrurosaurus or Doryphorosaurus, but it doesn't seem correct to dismiss the replacement names as "unneeded" because the argument used ("the pronunciations are different") is not universally/objectively valid. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus 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. Review: July 6, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Kentrosaurus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
I've consolidated all reference data in the references section, sorted alphabetically by first author, so that the main text only contains call-outs. This helps in not creating duplicate entries, and it allows calling out specific sections (e.g. pages) within a reference in one instance but not in another without it appearing several times in the list. To that end I have added a NOTES section. The way to call out specific pages etc. is via this tag: {{#tag:ref|PAGE in TEXT_NAME_OF_REF<ref name=REFNAME/>|group="upper-alpha"}}, where PAGE is the element you wish to cite (e.g., "page 223"), TEXT_NAME_OF_REF is the reference name as you want it to read (e.g., "Paul (2010)") and REFNAME is the name given to the reference in the References section (e.g. "Paul2010").
Please stick to these rules; when bringing Plateosaurus to FA status it helped a LOT in avoiding chaos with the references. HMallison ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I started this article before I had an account and am pleased to see that it's evolved into something far more complete. Any chance of us finding a picture in the public domain? Agentsoo 15:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Done! Took this piccy in 1995 at the really cool museum in Berlin Cas Liber 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the spike really over the hips? It's more commonly placed over the shoulders (though of course there might have been something more recent I don't know about. Also this paragraph:
...isn't logically sound, and needs a reference or a re-write. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the constant comparisons to Stegosaurus. The article reads like the differences between Kentrosaurus and Stegosaurus, not like an article about the animal itself. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Any links appropriate to this cryptid? - Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu - which some cryptozoologists think may be a Kentrosaurus - like stegasaur -- ZayZayEM ( talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
quite some important stuff has re-appeared. Also, "An almost-complete skeleton was at one time recovered and mounted in the Humboldt Museum, of the University of Berlin but the museum was bombed during World War II and many specimens were lost." makes it sound
1) as if the mount was gone
2) as if it was a complete animal that was mounted. HMallison ( talk) 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds much better now ;) I'll find the reference (Galton 19something) for the cranial material that was found again in some drawer in the basement ASPA. Also, next month (after a conference in Berlin) I will have time to go through the material and see what is still there, what is in Tübingen, and what is still missing or destroyed. I can also list, from Janensch 1925, what is real in the mount - most of the back and ribs is not from the 'nearly complete individual' (which is not really very complete). HMallison ( talk) 11:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC) added info on the mount, as well as references. btw: the Museum für Naturkunde is now part fo the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, and no loger of the Humboldt-University. Once I find time... HMallison ( talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
hey, if us guys actually working on the specimens didn't know, that'd be really really embarrassing ;)I'll update as I go along in my research. Spikes placement also needs a few comment. HMallison ( talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Part 1: I am revamping the entire article, trying to get away from the Kentro-is-an-almost-stegosaurus style, too. Please feel free to fix typos etc. in the new sections, or alter the old ones, which I will consult for the new version constantly. HMallison ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Kentrosaurus longispinus comes from a Dinogeorge article (see here for a brief discussion). Having said that, I think the only other people who really took it up were dinosaur buffs on the Internet. J. Spencer ( talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Under German copyright laws, only the exterior, not the interior of museums, is in the public domain. While taking photographs inside is usually allowed when not using a tripod, and sometimes even when doing so, it is always explicitly forbidden (unless the museum expressly permits it) to use the images for anything but "private use". Releasing images for commercial use is not covered. Thus, I am removing all questionable images for now. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin has, to my certain knowledge, not released anything for use on wikipedia. HMallison ( talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yippee! Permission granted :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
draft is here: User:HMallison/DraftKentrosaurus
The article currently reads " Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania, dated to the Kimmeridgian stage, between about 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma (million years ago)." There does not appear to be a citation backing up this age range. Furthermore, the Kimmeridgian stage is dated from 157.3 ± 1.0 Ma to 152.1 ± 0.9 Ma according to the current official ICS timescale. [4] Is there a verifiable source for the 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma age range? If so, shouldn't the range of Kentrosaurus be summarized as mid Kimmeridgian through early Tithonian? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reid,iain james ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. I've decided to take up this review, and hope that it can make it to FA.First off:
That's it for now, in two days (I have a soccer tournament today and tomorrow) I will provide many more comments. Good work and good luck - IJReid ( talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Other than these minor quibbles, Kentrosaurus seems ready to pass. I have not checked the references, although on the basis of Mallison's rewrite draft, which I trust as he is likely to get the sources, I think the citations are at least adequate. IJReid ( talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After promoting the article I came across some things to add, that do not affect the overall quality of the article. @ LittleJerry:@ HMallison: Mallison published a new article, found here, that can add more info to the article. It is on the affect of osteoderms on the centre of gravity. It is also under a CC-By Attribution 3.0 license, with one figure on Kentrosaurus with different possible osteoderm arrangements. I think some of the info can be added to the size and posture section, and the image might be uploaded, although HMallison might want to do the uploading himself. IJReid ( talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says "because both the spellings and the pronunciations are different (Centrosaurus is pronounced with a soft C), both Doryphorosaurus and Kentrurosaurus are unneeded replacement names". This might be true for the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, but in Classical Latin pronunciation the letter C always sounds like /k/ (there's no "soft C"). Kentrosaurus and Centrosaurus sound the same to anyone speaking Classical Latin, which is the reason why two replacement names were proposed. Isn't this justified? I'm not saying Wikipedia or anyone else should stop using Kentrosaurus and start calling this genus Kentrurosaurus or Doryphorosaurus, but it doesn't seem correct to dismiss the replacement names as "unneeded" because the argument used ("the pronunciations are different") is not universally/objectively valid. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)