Talk:Baryonyx/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I have made a total of three trivial edits to this article in nearly ten years, I think I am uninvolved enough to review it. I will read and make any straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning!) and jot down queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your edits look good, I will fix the issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is too abrupt. I'd rejig it to something like, "Baryonyx (/ˌbæriˈɒnɪks/) is a genus of theropod dinosaur that lived in the Barremian stage of the early Cretaceous Period, around 130–125 million years ago." - then follow with the fossil stuff.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I wouldn't start the three paras of the lead all with "Baryonyx..." but I am stumped to see how to tweak that.~~

Tried something, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd link articulation, pleurocoels, primitive (which has a specific meaning in cladistics)~~

Linked primitive, but pleurocoel just links to skeletal pneumaticity, which is already linked... I'll explain in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgot articulation, linked to joint. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fenestra is singular...don't you mean fenestrae?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on size, is there anything at all in the papers on the other fragments on their (possible) size and relation to the holotype, even if just to sat remains too meagre to compare. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Very good suggestion, I found a bit on the best Portuguese specimen, and added some other bits as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, Casliber, is it apparent that the CT scan under palaeobiology is a video, or should I note it in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that helps. The arrow indicated it was an animation to me today but I don't recall it from last night...but then again I was pretty tired. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok hang on....

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:

I think the article fulfils the GA criteria. Other things - make sure all the refs are formatted the same way (e.g. check the authors are all separated by semicolons etc. title/sentence case for titles etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]