Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psittacosaurus

Psittacosaurus
Very nice, well-researched and sourced article. Not a self-nom, in the sense that everything I originally wrote has been replaced with better text.--Firsfron 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*Object per above. The lead needs to summarize the article, not just introduce it. Yes, inline Harvard is technically okay but WP:FOOT and Cite templates give a neater and more consistent look. Emt147 Burninate!  06:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Object.   Neutral.  The lead section is not long enough, and the article needs to have in-line citations, as well as fewer lists. RyanG e rbil10 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has only one brief list. How can it have "fewer lists"?!--Firsfron 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will work on lengthening the lead. However, aren't there numerous in-line citations throughout the article? They are in Harvard style, which is acceptable in Wikipedia, is it not? (WP:CITE). I am also a little confused about the list comment, to be honest. Thank you for your input. Sheep81 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Harvard inline citations should be alright; just try to make sure every little bit of content has a citation (i.e., at least every paragraph, besides the lead section). --  BRIAN  0918 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the WP:FOOT and Cite templates look better, and I also must admit I *hate* Harvard in-line citations. I still think the list could be more fleshed out, perhaps explaining the differences between the species, or why so many species could have existed. However, the article is better so I'll strike my objection. RyanG e rbil10 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am currently working on an update which should improve the article further. I fleshed out the list a bit, although most of the detail is still listed on the separate Species of Psittacosaurus page due to its length. I also added a little something about why there are so many known species. Sheep81 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Full Support. RyanG e rbil10 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very nicely written and interesting. Good job! - Emt147 Burninate!  21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! We will work a little more on the lead to create more of a summary and look into converting to footnotes (I have never done it before). Sheep81 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy to do. For a very short, simple example, see Brail. When you're editing, all the source info is added inline, rather than stuck at the end, but when it's rendered, it shows up at the end. So, for example:
 * Then, if you want to stick in another citation from that same source, you just use that name again:
 * If you have a new source, use a different value for name. Then, at the end, under the References section, all you put is:
 * --  BRIAN  0918 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can use the Harvard system, but if doing so you should link all of the inline citations- consider using Template:Harvard citation (see usage on Template talk:Harvard citation). However, I also prefer the cite.php system. AndyZ t 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Besides adding another paragraph to the lead section, you should also consider the following:
 * Tense problems: In some paragraphs, the tense switches from present to past. You should try to keep the same tense throughout a section, or throughout an article, if possible. Under the Description section, if you use present tense, you should make it clear that you're referring to the current fossil evidence. If you want to use past tense, you would refer to how they would have looked back then, i.e. "They stood 2 meters high, and weighed over 20 kilograms."
 * Description problems: You mention the powerful beak in the lead section, but don't give any more detail in the Description section. Specific information is given for the largest species, but how much larger are they than the average-sized species? How small is the smallest species? What fraction of the 150 known specimens are of each species? Were these fossils found scattered throughout Asia, or in a few large "graveyards"? These are just some random questions that come to mind, though the information may not be public.
 * General style problems: Some of the paragraphs are very short (only 1-2 sentences). Also, new paragraphs shouldn't start with But, or However, and the subject should be reintroduced with each new paragraph (ie, in an article about John Smith, each paragraph would start by mentioning his name, rather than simply saying "He...")
 * Size: when you say smaller/larger, this has to be with respect to something; and when you say small/large, specific dimensions should be given, so that the reader will know exactly how small/large. ("What do you mean? Small like a rat, or small like a dog?") --  BRIAN  0918 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful, thank you. Unfortunately documentation is very light for most of these species aside from P. mongoliensis, which is by far the most common and well described, so most of the information is based on that species (you see the same tendency in professional works, unfortunately, which just compounds the problem). I will do what I can to find more specific information for all of the species. I will also work on tense and your general style concerns, as well as tidying up the citations. Question though: if two paragraphs are derived from the same source material, would it be better to cite each paragraph separately? For instance, most of the description section is based on one source. I really appreciate all of the suggestions we have received on this article, thank you! Sheep81 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) PS - There is no way to wrap the text around the TOC, correct?
 * If you can't find the information in the journal articles, you could probably email the author and ask him specific questions. I've done this on several occassions. I would cite each paragraph separately. With the system, it won't look as bad as with the Harvard system. You could probably wrap around the TOC block if you wanted to, but I don't think it's preferred. --  BRIAN  0918 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Stay tuned to this station. I just went through the article with a fine-toothed comb to coordinate all the tenses to past tense. I also added a new section on Predation which I had forgotten to originally include, and expanded the lead to three solid paragraphs. Sheep81 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Tenses fixed, Predation section added and updated, lead expanded to three paragraphs, further copyediting performed, and now... article is completely footnoted! Look forward to any further comments! Thank you all. Sheep81 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It looks good now. Some other improvements would be to: go into more detail in the diet and predation sections, if possible; add a few more useful external links; find a freely-licensed image for the article, or create your own... if you aren't good at drawing, you could ask User:Rfl, who drew this skull, to try drawing one of the heads/skulls of the dinosaur. (note: I've asked him to make a drawing of the skull) --  BRIAN  0918 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that would be terrific if he would do it. We are also asking an outside artist for permission to use some images. The one in the taxobox is pretty but would look better in the body of the article. Sheep81 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I thought the article was good before all the improvements.--Firsfron 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a great article! Only problem I could find: reference tags should be placed after punctuations marks, like this.[1] And not like this[2]. Other than that, definite FA material! -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you! Sheep81 10:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)