Wikipedia:Peer review/Kentrosaurus/archive1

I’m looking for peer review of accuracy and any suggestions on how to improve this article as I’m trying to get it to Featured Article Status. I’m considering adding more images, as many images are available from Hennig (1925). Augustios Paleo (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a pre-FAC look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since co-nominated the GAN version, he should be asked if he wants to participate in this PR and in the FAC nomination. Perhaps  also has something to say, having written the only other stegosaur FA in recent years, Paranthodon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I screwed up the pinging of  and, so trying again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm busy at the moment but I do have interest in this dinosaur for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds nice, perhaps you should be tagged once this review is finished? FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * On what basis do we think the Hennig images are free? The artist should have died at least 70 years ago. Do we know who the artist was? Edwin Hennig died in 1977, and is currently credited, so that of course doesn't add up.
 * If no solution to the above can be found, they could perhaps be uploaded locally to Wikipedia with this tag:
 * If that works, you could add more images by using the multiple image templates.
 * There are many WP:duplinks which can be highlighted with this script.

A few comments by me of the general layout of the article. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 03:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The organization of content within sections seems a bit haphazard
 * Discovery doesnt follow a chronological series, it jumps around paragraphs and even sentences without flow
 * Description has out of place sentences (like the olecranon development mentioned in size)
 * Classification is alright but including two cladograms when one is just a newer version of the other seems unnecessary
 * Paleobiology lacks discussions of aspects like reproduction and growth
 * The sentence in discovery about the remounting provides way to much undue weight to the company that does it
 * The description section probably doesn't need to many bracketed explanations, links and basic anatomical knowledge should suffice for most of them
 * This will certainly be asked for at FAC, though. Anyhow, links should go to the Dinogloss for best explanations. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Any figures from Hennig or Janensch 1916 would be a good free alternative in case of issues with Hennig 1925 not having free copyright globally