Talk:Gordodon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gordodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall well written article, and not too much literature out there on it since the taxon is only 3 years old   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I did some minor copyediting earlier

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Why do you cite Live Science?

   I cited Live Science for the estimated total body length given in the press release, as the paper itself only provided a presacral length. I meant to cite both for each, though I managed to misplace the Live Science ref for the presacral length by mistake. I've corrected the order of the citations, though if it's better to remove the Live Science ref all together I'll be happy to oblige. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 13:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a number only mentioned in Live Science. It doesn't make any sense how they'd approximate the length of the tail anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair dos, I've cut the reference to total body length. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fossil skull of Gordodon with vertical sawcut

• ... that Gordodon was the first herbivore with a specialised mammal-like tooth arrangement, 299 million years ago? Source:Lucas et al. (2018)
  • ALT1:... that the only fossil of Gordodon accidentally had its skull sawed in half (pictured) while it was being excavated? Source:Lucas et al. (2018)

• Comment: A clearer illustration of the skull and teeth is available on the article page if preferred, but I felt this photo of the sawcut might be more eye-catching.

Improved to Good Article status by DrawingDinosaurs (talk). Self-nominated at 14:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT1 is much more interesting, especially with the image. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

DrawingDinosaurs would you be okay with a tweak of your hook to read either

• ... that excavators accidentally sawed through the skull of the only known fossil of Gordodon (pictured) while removing it?

or

• ... that the skull of the only known fossil of Gordodon (pictured) was accidentally sawed in half while it was being excavated?

It reads a bit awkwardly at the moment. MeegsC (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! Either tweak looks good to me, though I think I prefer the second one—the first might come across as implying the skull itself was removed from the slab. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)