Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dinosaur collaboration is a coordinated effort by WikiProject Dinosaurs to improve Wikipedia's dinosaur-related content. However, being a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs is not a prerequisite for participation in this collaboration. All Wikipedians, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject, are welcome to contribute. Aside from the main benefit of creating better dinosaur articles on Wikipedia, this initiative will hopefully a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. The ultimate goal of the Dinosaur Collaboration is to get at least one dinosaur or dinosaur-related article featured every month.

It was originally activated in June 2006 and coordinated by Spawn Man (talk · contribs) and collaborations work chosen every fortnight until October 2006. Six articles out of the eleven worked on through this period, ultimately achieved Featured Status, and another two achieved Good Article status. There was a short hiatus before reactivation in January 2007 with Casliber (talk · contribs) coordinating, with collaborations chosen monthly until winding down in May 2008. A further five out of thirteen, achieved Featured Status. Voting was reactivated in December 2010 for the selection of a collaboration, in January 2011. The variable pace of improvement, plus greater time required to improve articles to a Good or Featured state, indicates that selecting collaborations monthly, will result in us cycling through them with only a minority reaching GA. Hence as of February 2011, a new collaboration will be automatically chosen once the current one achieves Good Status (a thoroughly worked over Good Article with a strict reviewer is often close to Featured Status, so editors can either keep working to shove the first article across the line or start on the second one and take a breather).

Nomination procedure[edit]

A list of past collaborations can be viewed here.

Any user may nominate an article to be collaborated upon. Nominees should:

  • Be about any dinosaur or directly dinosaur-related topic.
  • Need a significant amount of work in terms of content, organization, prose, etc.
  • Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection.

If you would like to nominate an article, please add it at the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think it should be chosen.

For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating an article.

===[[ARTICLE NAME]]===
''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]];''


  1. (sign with four tildes)


  • (put your reason for nomination, sign again)


For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support an article.



Please list nominees below using the code laid out in the above section. Newer nominees should be placed on the bottom of the list. Feel free to vote for as many nominees as you wish, but only once per nomination. Please only vote to indicate support, do not vote in the negative. If you like, add a comment in the comment's section under nomination, or on the collaboration talk page. Articles will remain on the list for three "bites" of the collaboration cherry, after which time they will be archived. For the current collaboration, see the template at the top of the page.

The next Dinosaur collaboration will be chosen on March 1st when the current nomination achieves Good Article status (rationale: activity not high enough to warrant us cycling through successful collaboration nominations without finishing what we start)

Origin of Birds (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated 13 January, 2011;


  1. Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


  • I think this is a pretty important article which obviously has a lot of information on it and is also very important. It has a lot of info already on it from previous efforts at fixing it up and I think all of this combines into a good mixture which shouldn't be too hard to bring up to at least a GA standard, if not to an FA.


Nominated November 4th, 2013;


  1. Raptormimus456 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


For more complete articles[edit]

If you think an article is good enough to be a Featured Article Candidate, feel free to nominate it. However, it is recommended that you have the article peer reviewed first. Peer reviewed articles are generally more polished and are often more likely to receive votes of support on the FAC page. If you would like to discuss a particular article before sending it to be reviewed, bring it up on the talk page of the article in question, of this page, or the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page. If you do send an article for peer review or to the FAC page, please let us know by adding it to the appropriate list below so that we can support it!

In terms of criteria consider proximity to FAC candicacy in terms of work required + personal preference + global importance WRT other dinos or FA list and wikipedia in general, in whatever ratios you wish...

Articles in peer review[edit]

  • None currently.

Featured Article Candidates[edit]

Articles under construction[edit]

  • Amargasaurus - Its now nominated for GA. The article now is at a level where I do not now how to improve it any further, so any suggestions/improvements would be very helpful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential future nominations[edit]

Below is a list of articles about genera that have enough coverage in the literature to warrant possible nomination:

  • Sinosauropteryx - Historically important, and almost there.
  • Spinosaurus - Same as above.
  • Cryolophosaurus - Needs some more work, but it seems not much more will be known about it until further remains are found, so it can be rounded off well.
  • Megalosaurus - It's history is a huge mess, but MWAk seems to be sorting it out.
  • Scipionyx - Recently got its monograph published, much more will probably not be known about it until other specimens are found.
  • Brachiosaurus - Recently had to be painfully split, but may be salvaged.
  • Giraffatitan - Same as above.
  • Dilophosaurus - Seems to be in good shape, and it seems not much new is being published on it.
  • Eoraptor - Just got a monograph, so could be expanded a lot.
  • Coelophysis - Well known, lots of information, main problem would be whether Megapnosaurus is sunk within it, but that'll only mean expansion, not cutting.
  • Protoceratops - Much seems to be known about it, so surprising that it is so short.
  • Kentrosaurus - Got pretty close recently.
  • Corythosaurus - Seems to be pretty well known.
  • Maiasaura - Same as above.
  • Camarasaurus - Very important sauropod, but still needs work
  • Saurolophus - already quite close, and well known
  • Microraptor - might also be close, and very important
  • Ceratosaurus - appears stable, but since the type specimen has been disassembled from its wall-mount, there might be a re-description on the way.
  • Goyocephale - not overly well known, but probably the most stable pachycephalosaur, with the validity of many genera and included species of most other pachycephalosaurs controversial.
  • Australovenator - plenty of free media and text to use.