Talk:Deinocheirus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll notify co-nominator ! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * rather than say " is a genus of large ornithomimosaurian dinosaur", how about " is a genus of large ostrich dinosaur" - no loss of accuracy and much more accessible.
 * Alright, though it may become a problem if changed in the rest of the article, as we have to distinguish between ornithomimidae and ornithomimosauria, which can both be referred to this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that this only needs to be used in the lead, as it is inviting to laymen and is slightly summarized from its full form. IJReid  discuss 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even have ornithomimisaurian in parenthesis after the term? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thoughts were change in lead only as more clarity needed elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ....and a few other bones of this animal were first discovered... --> "of this animal" redundant.
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  .. and Deinocheirus was long thought of as an enigmatic dinosaur. - clunky. How about, "its nature remained a mystery" or something along those lines.
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  The tail ended in pygostyle-like vertebrae, which indicates the presence of a fan of feathers. - "indicate" as vertebrae is plural?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nature (journal) should be italicised?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  which was to include the supposedly related genera Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus - I'd add a footnote here (using the efn|1= format) to clarify current thoughts on their (distant) relationship
 * Added a bit to the article, since it turns out it actually had a bit of support subsequently, and was not just a dead end... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Be good if one of the sources used the term convergent evolution, which could be slotted in, but no bother if not....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but the arms aren't really that similar, they're just big, which was apparently enough to group them together back then... The hands and claws are very different. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * aaah ok - good point - nix that then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Map template file to be noted on File:Map mn umnugobi aimag.png?
 * I think it's this, by the same author? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah looks like it - just worth noting (someone makes me do it for all mine...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Linked it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Spell out file source on File:Deinocheirus mirificus forelimb.png (not just link)
 * Done. IJReid  discuss 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant write out citation of this article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it now. IJReid  discuss 15:18, 6 February 2015 (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: - tight and well-written article. I think it is within striking distance of FA. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I've submitted this for copyedit, but it will probably take a couple months before it reaches the top of the list. Do you think it could be nominated without copyedit? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)