Talk:Azilestes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The specimen was found by surface prospecting northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil. - might wanna reword that. Grammatically correct but had to read it a couple of times to confirm....

It preserves only part of the mandibular corpus - is "mandibular corpus" same as "body of mandible"?

Can the Palaeoecology section be expanded at all? e.g. is it temperate/tropical/riparian/montane/forest/desert......

Sorry for taking so long to reply! I'll have to address these later, as I haven't got much time. All I can say right now is that there is no information on the palaeoenvironment of the Grès de Labarre. Borophagus (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No dramas - happy to leave these open for an extended period. article is in good shape and on track - am reduced to quibbles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad it's all good. Looking up the definition of the mandibular corpus, it looks like it's basically just the body of the mandible. I might be wrong, but the medical dictionary lists it as: "the heavy, U-shaped, horizontal portion of the mandible extending posteriorly to the angle where it is continuous with the ramus; it supports the lower teeth." Also, now I have time to address the other point. Would this be better? "The specimen was found in the northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil, by surface prospecting in the area."

ETA: Would it be possible to address any of those quibbles? Borophagus (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are fossil articles always this technical? WP:TECHNICAL. —Eewilson (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

While not quite as technical (I admit to getting a little carried away in places), the article for Monolophosaurus is an example of a technical palaeontology article. Borophagus (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ETA: Another example is Dromaeosauroides. Borophagus (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry got sidetracked. Will check today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: (bar minor rewording which is not a deal-breaker) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)