Wikipedia:Peer review/Tyrannosaurus rex/archive1

Tyrannosaurus rex
The best known dinosaur really deserves to be the first dinosauroid FAC, or doesn't it? The article seems to look pretty complete, but there are still some things that can be said or said differently I guess. Phlebas 12:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its almost there, to get it through FAC without to much drama you may want to do the following: --nixie 13:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The introduction should be extended to summarise the article, probably up to 3 paragraphs;
 * 2) In text refs should be tidied up with the footnote template (looks like you're already doing that), and check that they are all in the same format;
 * 3) What are the arguments for and against warm bloodness?;
 * 4) What is the purpose of the world of T. rex section?
 * 5) Were the other Tyrannosauridae around during the same period as T. rex, add dates to the table?
 * 6) Trivia section is a bit short, I'm sure T. rex has inspired heaps of things in popular culture too :);
 * 7) Run the whole thing through a word processing program for spelling and grammar.

I'm a bit confused with the paragraph that starts with: The lack of speed (adaptations) is an important point. I don't understand why adaptations is in parentheses. Ditto for (conform these latest findings). What conforms to these findings? What findings? Is that supposed to be a note to the author? That entire section (Predator, Scavenger or Both?) could benefit from a rewrite. I agree with above; the refs should definitely be in the same format. I'd also like to see references for the warm-blooded claim. --jag123 14:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Lead is too short. Remove external links from main body with Footnotes, format external links in references according to Cite sources. Sectioning is confusing. I can't find 'history of discovery', 'The World of Tyrannosaurus rex' is a strange section - expand or merge, trivia is never accepted in FA articles. And 'TRex in fiction' would likely make a useful section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to have been trying to "correct" underlying assumptions that predators are fast. This leads to some bad flow. The use of direct "numbered" links is not good style since they are difficult to correct if the link target moves or is modified. Mozzerati 21:13, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


 * Some points:
 * Rewrite of "Predator, Scavenger or Both?": I tried to make a discussion of it, and so yes, honestly, the bad flow remark is right on. Additionally, are you alluding to "On the other hand, presupposing that a predator must be fast is scientifically injust."?
 * The two orphaned links at its bottom: they link to online discussions, who have no authority, so should they be kept?
 * The World of Tyrannosaurus rex: why is it a strange section? I see nothing wrong with it. It needs to be substantiated some more of course.
 * As I'm still relatively newbie, what's the deal with "this peer review has been archived". --Phlebas 23:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Archived means it has spent a month on Peer Review and gets moved off that page and on to the articles talk page--nixie 23:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)