Talk:Plateosaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's go

• Sellosaurus is a self-redirect, unlink
• References are a mess and need sorting before we go any further

* naturkundemuseum-berlin.de. link is dead

• Several in text "references" are direct links to external sources and are not formatted as references at all
• Ref 14 lacks all fields except title, needs author, work, publisher, date of publication and access date
• Refs 13, 53, 54 contain either a bare url or a ref within a ref. If you are not using templates, the format [url title] incorporates the url and makes the title the link

• I've fixed these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• ref 2 appears to be web publication but lacks url to appropriate page; ref 5 lacks page, volume and issue; ref 35 page formatted differently; ref 39 lacks page numbers; ref 20 appears to be in Spanish?
• popular culture section needs referencing to show that it's not WP:OR
• There are sizeable chunks elsewhere in the text that are unreferenced, eg last para of description

• Images

• The three drawings each appear to have an uploader who is not the creator, and the links from the first two do not go to a page containing the image. In the third the file history says fotografiert von de:user Keimzelle , but he/she is not the uploader. I can't see any evidence to prove that these images are correctly licensed
• photographs are correctly licensed. None have WP:alt text, not a requirement at GA, but mandatory at FA

Comments on text to follow once the above have been clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimfbleak,

while I appreciate that you undertake the task of reviewing such a long article, I must admit that your critizism of the references sections is mostly.... confusing. First of all, you call things "a mess", but you have obviously not done a thorough review! In general, if you use harsh terms, such as "mess", "chaos", "badly researched", you should make 100% sure that most of your points are correct, and that there are major issues. Both requirements are clearly not fulfilled here. Let me list why!

• there is only ONE major issue (if it were correct): the claimed lack of sources for large sections of the text. However, if you bother to check what needs to be sourced Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_and_when_to_cite_sources, there is no need to add even MORE citations to the text. Your example is the description section - well, I wrote that from memory. And where does that memory stem from? Form actually looking at a mounted and dismounted skeleton. Anyone can do that, there is no special source, and nobody is going to contend this. So why source? Just because I can? OK, I can do that, but how would you like it when I re-cite roughly 20 of the already cited papers within a four or five sentence section when the rules do not require sources? let's go through this point by point:

• "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" - NOPE!
• "When quoting someone" - NOPE!
• "When writing about living persons" - NOPE! (although I would not complain if Plateosaurus was still around.

Now, as I said I could add sources, but none of them are not already cited, most repeatedly, in the article. I tried to make sure that ALL important publications are mentioned, and believe me: I know that beast and the papers about it.

• there are various minor points that aren't:

+ ref 2 [...] lacks url to appropriate page: do you know what "accepted" means? It means that the paper has been submitted, reviewed, found satisfactory and will definately appear. However, the volume and (if appropriate) pages/URL is not yet known.

+ similarly, ref 5 lacks page, volume and issue: do you know what "in review" means? It means that the paper has been submitted and is being reviewed, much as this article. However, in proper scientific literature, stuff is not published and printed until AFTER the review. Where should I get the issue number and the pages from, if there is no paper copy yet?

+ ref 35 page formatted differently: correctly formatted, it is a book, and the total number of pages is given.

+ popular culture section needs referencing to show that it's not WP:OR: let me get this very straight: you want me to reference movies and series that are a) named in the text and b) actually present as links within wikipedia? Get real! this is not a quote, nobody is going to contest this, the proper information can be found on the linked pages (or should be there, at least), and the information given within the text is actually sufficient. Do you have any idea what "original research" actually means?

quote from WP:OR "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

+ The three drawings ...: I really do not understand your criticism: WP user ArthurWeasly drew them, released them, and user FunkMonk used those images, improved them, uploaded them and released them.

+ In the third the file history says fotografiert von de:user Keimzelle , but he/she is not the uploader.: which image is this? Third drawing has no user:keimzelle, nor the thrid image of the entire article! I simply do not understand the problem here - do we now need to review the review?

Now, there are various points you mention were you are either correct, or mostly correct. I thank you very much for pointing them out, because this enables me to fix them, if I can, or ask others to do so, if I lack the resources. This is what reviewing is about, partly - the other half of a review should be constructive, pointing out what could be improved without it being wrong now. Please do so as well.

(partly) correct points I have already addressed are:

+ naturkundemuseum-berlin link dead: In fact, it was dead for one hour this morning (CET), when the servers were rebooted. I used the site last night, and I checked just now: up! I amended it (added www.), but the link was and is fine. I guess you happened to check at a bad time, and did not re-check. That's OK, however, in your place I would have checked several times before claiming that the website of one of the five largest natural history museums in the world is dead.

+ ref 39 lacks page numbers: Indeed, mea maxima culpa. This is because I have only a PDF, and that lacks page numbers. I found four(!) different specifications, which may or may not pertain to different editions. Given the age of the book, I felt the total number of pages is rather irrelevant on the English wikipedia page, because pratically nobody outside Germany and maybe France can get at a copy anyways. If I find the info I will add it, but it needs to be reliable. I do not wish to copy it from another source, if the sources disagree.

+ ref 20 appears to be in Spanish: probably. I added a [Spanish] note. Do you really think this is an issue?

+ Sellosaurus: indeed, Sellosaurus article was merged into Plateosaurus article. I, as a reviewer, would have fixed this right away; that's much faster than someone else going huting for the error. But no matter: you were correct; thank you for pointing this out.

+ Wikipedia:Alt_text: as you point out, this is not required. Maybe you could have noted this in a section saying "desirable stuff"? In any case, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I talked about above: a constructive criticism that improves the article beyond the absolute must. Thank you! I did not yet know about alt_text!

Now, some remarks:

• you could claim that citing the submitted and accepted papers is WP:OR. However, "accepted" means it will be out very soon. The "subm." ref can at any time (i.e., should the paper be refused, which would be very surprising) be changed against several other citations. However, these are hard to get items, while APP publishes free PDFs. Guess why I used that source ;)
• "Several in text "references" are direct links to external sources and are not formatted as references at all": I do not understand this: what links are you referring to? If you talk about the museum home pages in the 'on display' section: these are NOT references, but helpful information on museums that do not have any or only rudimentary wiki pages. Please clarify!

HMallison (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You still have not answered my questions; thus I do not understand what you mean about the intext citations. I saw no toehr solution but deleting anything that looked like one. Also, images: I still can't find the specific one you talked about, and I can't see anything wrong with the three you mentioned. ArthurWeasly (IIRC) drew them for wikipedia, licensed them, FunkMonk updated them, and licensed them. No, I won't bother to ask what is wrong, because I now do not believe I will get a reply, so they are removed.HMallison (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• The image problem, File:Plateosaurus BW.jpg and File:Sellosaurus.jpg were uploaded by arthur weasley who claims it as own work, but the author name on the file page is not arthur weasley. File:Plateosaurus.jpg was uploaded by Dudo but the author text says fotografiert von de:user Keimzelle. The other non-photographic illustration,File:Human-plateosaurus size comparison(V2).png is OK

sorry, I missed that! thank you for clarifying!HMallison (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be too late, but when the Commons uploader is not the same as the author, that's usually because the image was transferred from Wikipedia to Commons by them without using the Commonshelper tool, not because there are copyright problems. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed the outstanding three refs with odd url links, other issues seem to have been addressed. It would be helpful if changes could be noted in an indent under my comments so that I know what to check. Thank you for removing the unreferenced text and OR. Looks better now. You could have kept the museum links in the external links section, but that's up to you.

that does not male sense, but makes a clutter.HMallison (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider consulting with the nominator. Although you may have the academic knowledge, Firston is a very experienced contributor and knows what needs to be done to meet GA and FA requirements, if you are not sure. Comments on text to follow, but it may be a day or two before I get time.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

take your time - I won't do anything but slash from the text now. Do not expect additions in any way. As much as I estimate your experience, this thing has gotten out of hand with your first review sentence already, and taught me to stay away from wikipedia. If anyone wants anything back there's always the rev option.

Furthermore, I cut the questionable photographs, as well as other dinosaur photographs in other articles that infringe copyrights of my workplace.HMallison (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lead section

• was the fifth dinosaur genus to be named that today is still considered valid - is this significant - just asking
• Owen is there a wikilink?
• plethora overworked

• Description teeth numbers greater than ten should be written as numbers, not words
• Classification and type material lectotype and sacrum need link or gloss
• Etymology I'm not sure that the Greek should be bolded, better used twice in one sentence
• Taxonomy Two-item list seems pointless since covered in text of first sentence anyway
• Taphonomy just note that refs should follow punctuation, I've fixed a couple, but not all
• Palaeobiology there's a tendency to overlink, not just here, but pronation is linked in consecutive sentences. Also "moment" in this technical context needs a link or gloss. endothermy also overlinked

Lead: being the fifth genus is reasonably significant, in my opinion. Otherwise, done.

Description: done

Classification: link and gloss for sacrum (we had a link but I wasn't fond of it, as it is anthropocentric), link for lectotype.

Etymology: done

Taxonomy: looked like a good suggestion

Taphonomy: I don't recall seeing any others like that, except for a cite in the middle of a sentence.

Palaeobiology: worked on the overlinking J. Spencer (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a formal review when you have had time to respond. If you are aiming for FA, you will need to read the MoS on image placements, add alt text, and preferably get a third party edit. If you're not familiar with the process, have a look at WP:FAC. At the risk of reopening old wounds, the article in its original state would have attracted a string of oppose votes. Assume everything must be referenced to WP:RS, prose must be of a high standard, and images must have impeccable copyright details. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK with me, no problem - however, this is definitely not the standard used for other articles. I could, btw, reference all the deleted text that leaves gaps now, and I could do it easily. However, it would mean re-reading about 20 publications! I know what was published, but not neccessarily where exactly, especially the 'basics'. And I must honestly say that there are about 10 million things more important in my life than bringing this article to a standard that many FA do not reach. Just check the copyrights on most images: a lot of 'I release' by people who have no right to do so. OOPS! So I suggest you fail this article now, I revert it to the complete information, the public is better served, and we all forget about this episode. HMallison (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick observations

I'm not sure the article meets criterion 5 of the Good Article Criteria anymore, since the article has changed considerably since last night, but I do want to thank Jim, HM, J, and Cas for all the work. It looks like I missed out on a major revamping. I'm not sure which of J's and Jim's points above are no longer applicable. Certainly, the references all follow punctuation, as I used an automated tool and couldn't find any to fix.

As said above: I simply can't be bothered to waste a week looking for the exact paper that first published a tidbit like 'all archosaurs excpet crocodiles have an antorbital foramen'. Textbook stuff references are not required for scientific publications. Therefore, I do not know them by heart. Thus, the deletions. HMallison (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, HM: your week will not be wasted. Cas, J, or myself can find citations, if they are truly needed, for such material. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the image removals. Why, for example, was the size comparison image removed? Couldn't the pop culture section, and its image, have been sourced instead of deleted?

What is there to 'reference' or 'source' when the text itself links to the wiki page of the movie?HMallison (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And the fossils aren't copyrighted, so why were some of these removed?

Sorry, wrong: the fossils are on the inside of museums, and German(!) copyright laws make this stuff non-public domain. HMallison (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

German copyright law covers photos of the architecture on the inside of buildings. I've left a comment at talk:Diplodocus. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the paragraph. I looked at the original text, and works of art (i.e. the mount) are covered as 'protected'. I'll get an expert opinion. HMallison (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HM. I don't think fossils fall under 'works of art' (a sculpture certainly would, but not fossils or casts of fossils), but I appreciate further review. Clarification from an expert would be good. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The bones are not works of art in MY view, but (see talk:Diplodocus) in the German law's view, if they are collection pieces. Furthermore, the mounting is clearly a work of art :(HMallison (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Firsfron of Ronchester 18:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the Arthur Weasley images, as these are indeed his. Arthur is his WP username; the person listed as author of those images is his real name. Arthur has contributed to this project for years, and his images are excellent. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimfbleak claimed an upload by a user 'keimzelle'. the only one of that name I could find is not the same guy as Arthur Weasley. HMallison (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moment

The current article has the following sentence: "In contrast to mammalian cursors, the moment arms of the limb extending muscles are short, especially in the ankle, where a distinct, moment arm-increasing tuber on the calcaneum is missing." I don't exactly know what this means, and I don't know how to improve it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

see [1]. I have added a link to the text. HMallison (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, HM. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Final (?) comments

• I fixed a missing conversion
• Re Criterion 5, I don't think that there is an edit war or a content dispute as such, and as reviewer I won't fail it on that criterion. Since no one owns an article, and the nominator wishes to continue, so will I.
• The Weasley images appear to be OK, but it would be helpful if the clarification could be added to the image pages, since it's certainly not apparent that the uploader and creator are the same from the current descriptions. File:Plateosaurus.jpg still appears dubious, and File:Human-plateosaurus size comparison(V2).png is OK anyway
• I know nothing about German copyright, so I'll take that on trust
• three remaining issues

• The "moment" item above - I did enough physics that I think I know what this means, but it needs clarifying for casual readers

fixedHMallison (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed AE "color" but units are BE "metres". Since the units are template generated, probably easier to change to "colour", but needs to be consistent

fixedHMallison (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any intention to restore deleted text sections at any stage? If not I'll conclude the review once the two minor issues above are fixed. If some of the text is going to be restored, I'll obviously wait to see the outcome. If it is to be restored it should be now, rather than after GAN, since otherwise the final version will differ substantially from the reviewed article and will have to go to GAR

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

JSpencer (IIRC) restored large parts, but most of it is hidden text now, because the publications ar enot out. Similarly, once someone (not me) finds page numbers for the now-removed references, the text could go back in. No idea if anyone wants to do that, though.

moment arm is now linked; hope that is sufficient.HMallison (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone mailed me page numbers for Agazzis, so I edited that portion back in. HMallison (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

colour done.HMallison (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to wikilink AW's name to the name on the file, but actually, on File:Sellosaurus.jpg (the only AW illustration included in the article at this time), the author's name is already wikilinked to Arthur's account. File:Plateosaurus.jpg, a photo, is no longer even in use in the article, so it only becomes a problem if it's re-added. Since the pop culture section was jettisoned, I'm not sure there's much use for it in the current text. Thanks to the Agazzis reference addition by HM here, and a couple of references I added, it looks to me like the only text which is commented out at this point is the material referenced to HM's papers, which are due for publication soon. Based on what I can tell from the above conversations, they were only commented out because they do not have page numbers(!). However, they will not receive page numbers until they reach print. I would prefer to have this material included (with the simple proviso "in press") then to have it excluded, but will defer to the collective judgment of reviewer Jim, HM himself, and WP:DINO (J and Cas). HM has, I believe, fixed the BrEn/AmEn difference and clarified "moment". Firsfron of Ronchester 13:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

and I finally found the Keimzelle photo - doh! Thanks. No, this pic is not really needed, and should not be added again, as the reconstruction is grossly outdated! I hope we get the skeleton pic of that pose back, once copyright has been clarified, which would be entirely sufficient. HMallison (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

(outdent) I've restored the hidden text and readded a ref that appeared to have disappeared altogether, I've no real problem with the unpublished refs, although FAC might be more picky. A few final points

• I should have picked this up before, the published books in the refs need their isbn numbers

some of the historical works may be difficult; I'll try to find them. HMallison (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Sellosaurus.jpg has a forced imge size of 250 px in the article. In general this should be avoided as it overrides user preferences for image display. Do you need this?

I'll remove. HMallison (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed the redirects not everyone likes this, so please revert if unhappy

Not at all unhappy here - thank you for doing this boring chore! HMallison (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter here, but at FAC page ranges will need an ndash, –, not a hyphen, and nonbreaking spaces will be needed between numbers and their units, and in forms such as P. engelhardti.

I'll do these, just not now. HMallison (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are any other concerns, I'll pass this once the isbn numbers are fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

quite a bit of the text concerning my upcoming papers is not back. No matter, article is good as it is. HMallison (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The redirects thing is actually a one-click fix using WikiEd (see the "gadgets" tab on My Preferences), so very easy if you use Firefox. Now, let's go for it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review

(see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: