Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allosaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 28 September 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 17:14, 28 September 2021 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 23:59, 14 December 2007.
Submitted for your approval, Allosaurus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is extensively cited and provides thorough coverage of a topic that turned out to have a lot of facets (in fact, one facet was split off during work and became the GA Species of Allosaurus). Images are useful, germane, and go beyond the standard dinosaur article fare, with a scale diagram of several different specimens, a map of quarry locations, and a scary-cool depiction of a possible hunting strategy. A tried and true dinosaur article format is in place, there is a selection of pertinent external links, and it has been stable. It's also had some attention from a non-WP:DINO editor.J. Spencer (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this image Image:Allosaurus.jpg really out of copyright. The author, Charles R. Knight, died in 1953 (less than 70 years ago). Bluap (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... looking at it, I think that the pre-1923 tag is the one that should have been used. Knight did several versions of this tableau, some of which are on Commons as pre-1923s (including an uncropped version of this image with another allosaur on the right side). I'll swap it out for a version with a pre-1923 tag, if you'd prefer. J. Spencer (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued checking... this appears to a lightened and cropped version of the allosaur illustration in William Diller Matthew's 1915 Dinosaurs (which can be viewed at Project Gutenberg). J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just changed the tag to PD-US, it's at least from 1919. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued checking... this appears to a lightened and cropped version of the allosaur illustration in William Diller Matthew's 1915 Dinosaurs (which can be viewed at Project Gutenberg). J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... looking at it, I think that the pre-1923 tag is the one that should have been used. Knight did several versions of this tableau, some of which are on Commons as pre-1923s (including an uncropped version of this image with another allosaur on the right side). I'll swap it out for a version with a pre-1923 tag, if you'd prefer. J. Spencer (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I am a WP:DINO contributor but I haven't touched this article. In fact, I've always been kind of afraid to work on it, so I'm very impressed by the work J and others have done. Thorough, informative, and pretty well-written too. It's got a scale diagram, it's got a map, it's got a subarticle which reached GA status. Plus a picture I took is in the taxobox! The only thing I can think of is that in both the Discovery and Paleobiology sections, there is a subheading immediately following the heading. Is that kosher? I'm not saying it isn't, I just don't know. Sheep81 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't have a problem with subheadings below headings if called for. Great work on this one. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One of the only dinosaur articles I can support right off the bat. No quarrels here and I don't think the subheadings are a problem - most articles do have them and adding a paragraph in between only creates a stubby small paragraph that doesn't give any real information. Well done JS! One of the finest dinosaur articles. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The introduction to the section on hunting is a bit confusing "Sauropods seem to be likely candidates as live prey..." and "Allosaurus seems an unlikely predator of sauropods..." appear to contradict each other. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some tweaking to it (specifically, a "fully grown" was inserted before "sauropods" in the second example). Does that help? J. Spencer (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, now I see what you were meaning I tweaked it a bit more. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, now I see what you were meaning I tweaked it a bit more. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, pending removal/resolution of the dubious tag on that sourced section. I was going to wait for more feedback from the community on this one, but I got tired of waiting. Full disclosure: I am a member of WP:DINO, and I worked a bit on this article, but between 42%-83% of the article was done by J.Spencer alone. Meets the comprehensive criteria: the longest article on any dinosaur genus, dethroning T. rex. Blows Britannica's 250-word "article" and Encarta's single paragraph on this genus out of the water. Well-sourced, from 84 peer-reviewed journals and books. No dead links [1] (one soft redirect won't go away). Written by a subject matter expert, copyedited by user:Circeus and others unfamiliar with the material. Dashes are correct, and formatting is good. The article is neutral and stable: I particularly like the way the synonymy is handled in this article: the potential junior synonyms Epanterias and Saurophaganax are presented, but not given undue weight. I'd like to see a size graph similar to that seen on Tyrannosaurus, but it's not necessary if unavailable. Prose seems readable and fluid. Run-on sentences have been quashed. The lead seems to cover the major points of the article. Both Fair Use images have detailed rationales provided. One image is indisputably in the Public Domain, created before 1923. Are we sure DOIs are in place for all newer papers? I see only 7 papers with DOIs. No other issues for me. Excellent work, J. :) Not that you don't know that already... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just checking the links; I can get the endocast article all right, and while the JSTOR links admittedly do not take you to the actual article (unless you have a subscription), you do get the first page and abstract for the two articles so linked, so the problem the link checker has is misleading. It's a nifty tool, though. J. Spencer (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, there are some fair use images with insufficient fair use rationales (no valid back link, for example), I'll fix those so they don't get deleted. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the templates, Funky. Greatly appreciated. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you very much for the assist! J. Spencer (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the templates, Funky. Greatly appreciated. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome brother, awesome. Shiva Evolved (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a support? Spawn Man Review Me! 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually neither supports nor opposes count per number - but as they reflect the quality - and they do so as they reflect the authors of the said opposes and supports. - So yes - it counts as a support.--Keerllston 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a support? Spawn Man Review Me! 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Can the lead editors check the relevance of these Auto Peer review comments and address those that are relevant? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing seems really relevant there. The automated comments asks editors to expand the lead on the article, but WP:LEAD states articles greater than 32k should be 3-4 paragraphs. There are 3 paragraphs in Allosaurus. The automated peer review says to use standard abbreviations for measurements, but the article actually uses the style recommended at WP:UNITS, for example: a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The only exception in the text is Short ton, which has no universally recognizable abbreviation (it's just called a ton in the US, but it might confuse non-U.S. readers to abbreviate it like that, and who uses S/T)? The automated review advises not to use -th on dates, but I ran an automated search, and found only three instances: 20th century, Forty-Seventh Annual Field Conference, and Sixth Symposium, none of which are dates. The automated peer review reminds editors not to use the name of the article in any of the headings. This warning is entirely irrelevant, as the name Allosaurus does not appear in any of the headings. The automated bot recommends use of subpages if possible; a subpage has already been created for the various species. The automated review reminds editors to use either British or American spelling. I have difficulty spotting this, but I ran an automated search for behaviour, metre, -our, and -ise, and found no results. The automated bot says there is an instance of wouldn't in the article, but I found no such instance in the article. I'm wondering if the bot was run on the current version of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Sheep already got to the one "wouldn't" and an Allosaurus in a heading. J. Spencer (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. My bad! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Sheep already got to the one "wouldn't" and an Allosaurus in a heading. J. Spencer (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing seems really relevant there. The automated comments asks editors to expand the lead on the article, but WP:LEAD states articles greater than 32k should be 3-4 paragraphs. There are 3 paragraphs in Allosaurus. The automated peer review says to use standard abbreviations for measurements, but the article actually uses the style recommended at WP:UNITS, for example: a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The only exception in the text is Short ton, which has no universally recognizable abbreviation (it's just called a ton in the US, but it might confuse non-U.S. readers to abbreviate it like that, and who uses S/T)? The automated review advises not to use -th on dates, but I ran an automated search, and found only three instances: 20th century, Forty-Seventh Annual Field Conference, and Sixth Symposium, none of which are dates. The automated peer review reminds editors not to use the name of the article in any of the headings. This warning is entirely irrelevant, as the name Allosaurus does not appear in any of the headings. The automated bot recommends use of subpages if possible; a subpage has already been created for the various species. The automated review reminds editors to use either British or American spelling. I have difficulty spotting this, but I ran an automated search for behaviour, metre, -our, and -ise, and found no results. The automated bot says there is an instance of wouldn't in the article, but I found no such instance in the article. I'm wondering if the bot was run on the current version of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like MoS issues have now been more or less fixed. Great article!! - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I fixed a stray imperial only-unit (ton) Jimfbleak (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.