 | Scanisaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 8, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Scanisaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- The first image forms a MOS:SANDWICH with the infobox. Could it be moved. When it is the second image will form a similar sandwich; I suggest dropping it down a paragraph.
- Though I feel like this looks a bit strange, I've moved both down. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- "though it continues to be used for practical purposes." I am struggling to work out what this means. Is it 'though it continues to be used in practice'?
- As in scientists know that the name Scanisaurus, within the definition made for it by Persson in 1959, isn't a valid name according to the rules of nomenclature but continue to use it anyway since it's the most convenient term for short-necked plesiosaur fossils in southern Sweden. I suppose "though it continues to be used in practice" works just as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- "within the water column" is a little confusing. Perhaps 'in open water' or similar?
- Yeah, changed it to "in open water". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- "(13.1–16.4 ft)" This seems spuriously precise. Perhaps |sigfig=2 ?
- Sure, changed to two significant figures. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- "and to vertebrae referred to the type species of Cimoliasaurus, C. magnus" This doen't make immediate sense for the lay reader.
- I've rephrased a bit and added a link to type species, is this fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Link the first instance of "referred" in each of the lead and the article to reference.
- Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cites 9 and 17 "P." →'pp.'.
- Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Was Einarsson (2018) a thesis for a masters or a doctorate?
- I doesn't say but I assume doctorate; Einarsson is identified as Dr. in stuff from 2018 onwards. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "The main distinguishing feature used by Bogolyubov to justify the creation of a new species were that" Either "feature" → 'features' or "were"→ 'was'.
- Did "were" → "was" since it's only one feature. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A fine article. Makes an inherently messy situation about as clear as it is ever likely to be made. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
