Talk:Trapalcotherium

Needs another assessment
Just 1 source, 4 meager refs and this length as a "good article"? Then hundreds of "good articles" are now just Starts or C's. This is not enough, there needs to be more weight to an article to become a good article, other sources needed. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not GA requirements. You could argue broadness, but will have to demonstrate what is missing. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed the maintenance tags, since they are not actionable. As with many animal species, this animal is only known from very limited material and discussed by very few sources—on a quick check, I could not find any post-2009 sources that do more than list the name.


 * I don't particularly care about whether this article remains listed as a good article, but I'd rather nobody add maintenance tags without an actionable explanation of how to fix the issues identified. Ucucha (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I agree with your actions. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)