Talk:Stegotherium

Stegotherium was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 1, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stegotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead:
- Can we have quick definitions of ~~"myrmecophagy"~~ and "cingulates" - the lead should be accessible to a layperson so even though you've linked the terms, a quick explanation will help here.
History:
- I've extensively copyedited this section - history should be in past tense, not present tense, so I've copyedited it to conform to that convention. Please double check that I haven't distorted anything.
- link for "osteoderms"? Done
Description:
- link for "piliferous foramina"? Done Linked separately; glossary link for piliferous, article link for Foramen. Not sure if this is sufficient.
Species:
- link for ~~"foramen"~~, ~~"alveoli"~~, "molariformes", ""
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Please please double check my copyedits. I would hate to have changed any meanings, but it was pretty obvious that chunks of the article were written by a non-native speaker of English. Not a put-down, just an observation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth What action would you consider appropriate when there is no article of a similar title to link to, and there does not appear to be a suitable definition within an article on Wikipedia that the search function can find? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and linked to the wiktionary article for wikt:molariform - assuming that is the correct link? If it is, I think we're pretty much set. Thank you for checking my copyedits and copyediting them... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a relatively new user has come through and removed redlinks and mechanically marked paragraphs as needing citations. I hadn't thought the information now tagged was that extraordinary but it appears we'll need to deal with this somehow. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify it at the moment (sadly, I nominated the article for GA review without knowledge of a personal issue that is for now occupying most of my attention), but either it is in Ameghino, 1887, or it was never discussed in any paper and is now taken for granted. Ameghino, 1887 is pretty hard to find tho, I will try to check back my folders and keep you in check as soon as I get time again. Larrayal (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 8 days since the last entry here... if nothing is heard from in the next few days, I'll have to fail the nomination. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally managed to get an hand on Ameghino, 1887. Sadly, the etymology part is absent, so I scrapped it for OR. Turns out Ameghino never really bothered assigning etymologies, or even holotypes. I added his first article for reference. Sorry for the duration of the nomination. I should have someone able to correct the language tonight at worst, if this is still an issue. Larrayal (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "citations needed" tags still need dealt with. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, nothing has been done in the last 9 days, so I'll be failing this article. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]