From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Abelisauridae 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.
November 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Dinosaurs (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Extinction  
WikiProject icon This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Any particular reason...[edit]

Any particular reason that this article is getting loads of edits at the moment? It's great, of course, but just wondering if I'd missed some big collaboration drive or something. Or maybe it's just my imagination. Soo 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I updated Abelisaurus and then decided to update Abelisauridae too. Since then people have been copyediting it... no organized thing or anything though. Any suggestions? Sheep81 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

With a little work[edit]

You know, someone could make this a GA if they wanted to, without too much difficulty. J. Spencer 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just nominated it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Status[edit]

The article has passed Sections 3), 4), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on Sections 1) and 2).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.

1) Style

Anatomy section

  • When a word has been wiki-linked, like, synapomorphies, there is no need to provide a "translation" by putting alternate words in brackets. Remove (defining features).
  • Remove (eye socket)
  • Remove (hand)
  • Remove (wrist)
  • Remove (upper ankle bones)

Taxonomy and systematics

  • Wiki-link "taxon"

2) Accuracy

Classification sub-section

  • Provide a reference for the claim "some scientists,,,,,"
  • Jorge Calvo is a non-existent link


  • All books, quoted as references, must have ISBN numbers.

3) Coverage - Article is broad in coverage and remains focused on the topic.

4) Neutrality - Article is writtem without bias.

5) Stability - Article is stable, without major edit wars.

6) Images - Two free, public domain images, and one copyright image, are used. No Fair Use images. Good use of images.

Corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Tovojolo. I really appreciate your comments and suggestions. I made several changes to the article. I hope they are what you were looking for.
I provided ISBNs for both of the books, and added two references for the Xenotarsosaurus claim. I removed the bit about Compsosuchus, as I couldn't find a good peer-reviewed source for it.
I didn't want to remove the explanatory terms for things like synapomorphies: if the document is printed, the reader will be completely unable to tell what the term means. Similarly, dinosaur articles often appear on the Wikipedia CDs, which contain only a limited number of articles, and are unlikely to ever contain an article on synapomorphies (the CD editors just remove the wikilinks which will be red on the CD, meaning the person using the CD won't have a satisfactory explanation for any of the technical terms used in the article). What I ended up doing is using the explanatory term, wikilinking to the technical term. Does this seem reasonable? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Novas 2004, already cited in the article, would be your source for Compsosuchus. I can send you the PDF if you want. Sheep81 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, your strategy on the wikilinks works on most except "astragalus and calcaneum (upper ankle bones)", because both of those are upper ankle bones, not just calcaneum like it says right now. Sheep81 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Status[edit]

I note that the the corrections that were required, have been carried, and I note too, the reasons for not carrying out some of the corrections. I do not regard those required corrections as being material. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.


Tovojolo (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Is the timeline at the end of the article supposed to be like the one on the Tyrannosauridae page, where it displays the time period in which each fossil genus existed, or is it supposed to be a timeline of when each fossil genus was first discovered/named? The former seems to me more useful, and would follow the precedent set in Tyrannosauridae. Perhaps someone with some more familiarity with the material can add a sentence or two of introduction to the timeline to clear this up. Reade (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


...the Greek suffix -ιδαι/-idai, which indicates a plural noun.

Yeah, like the word horsemen indicates a plural noun. The ai is a nominative plural ending, but the id has a meaning independent of number, probably ‘descendant’. —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)