Talk:Tylocephale/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'd be happy to review this for you. I should have my initial comments posted tomorrow. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• Usually the lead and infobox aren't supposed to have citations since they're summaries of the rest of the article. As a result, you can remove the citation since you have the name meaning cited in the body of the article.

Discovery and naming

• Link taxa
• Link dinosaur

Classication

• Link cladistic
• Link phylogenetic

Skull and ornamentation

• Probably a nitpick since this article is in great shape already, but maybe try to make it so The type, and only known, specimen consists of a skull lacking the braincase, palate, and anterior parts of the skull doesn't have so many commas, specifically the beginning of the sentence can be slightly reworded.
• Link squamosal
• Notably, the dome is extremely high domed - is there a better way to word this so you're not saying dome so much?
• Can you link quadrates?
• jugals is the widest point of the skull if it's plural, should it be jugals are?

Tooth and mandible

• Should it be teeth and mandible?
• I assume "preserced" is supposed to be "preserved"?
• The teeth have been heavily eroded due to outside factors like erosion and taphonomy. - Slightly rewrite to avoid using eroded and erosion together in this instance.
• The mandibular teeth, seven in number, have high crowns and arched cutting surfaces. The mandible is very poorly preserved, consisting only of the posterior portions. The mandible has a weakly-elevated - You have "the mandibular/the mandible" starting three straight sentences.

Diet

• leaves, seeds, fruit and insects - comma after fruit to be consistent with comma use throughout the rest of the article

Dome function

• Link keratin
• dome was not purely for display or species recognition but for agonistic - comma after recognition

Paleoenvironment

• In addition, structureless, medium-grained, fine-grained and - comma after fine-grained
• Unlink Gobipipus unless you think an article will be made soon for it.

Images

• Images appear to be properly licensed
• Something I've recently been told that I'll pass on to you. Image captions should be fully linked, regardless of if any of the words are already linked elsewhere in the article.

References

• I will do ref checks once you address the things above.
• Earwig turned up no issues
• Footnote numbers are accurate as of this edit
  • Ref #2: the catalogue number was ZPAL MgD-I/105 -  Confirmed
  • Ref #6: Tylocephale was placed in an order called Pachycephalosauria, which also included Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus -  Confirmed
  • Ref #12: "Within Pachycephalosauria, the phylogenetic position of Tylocephale and other genera are in flux due to a lack of many well-preserved specimens" -  Confirmed
  • Ref #29: the dome was likely used for head-butting -  Confirmed
  • Refa #31 and #32: "The Barun Goyot Formation, based on sediments, is regarded as Late Cretaceous in age" -  Confirmed

Comments

Of the articles I've done GA reviews for so far, this is probably the one most well written and in the best shape. A lot of the issues were very minor, mostly just needing some extra links or slightly rewording sentences. Great job! -- ZooBlazer^talk 05:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! All suggestions with the exception of the Gobipipus one have been implemented. I’ll make a stub for that bird now. AFH (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm happy to promote this to GA. Congrats! -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.