Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deinosuchus

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

---

Deinosuchus

Nominator(s): FanCollector (talk)

I've been working on this article for a while, with help from J. Spencer, Casliber, Orangemarlin, and others. (Apokryltaros provided a nice illustration for the article as well.) At this point, I believe it is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced, and I'm nominating it because I think it meets all the FA criteria. It's already been through a peer review and the concerns brought up there have been addressed. FanCollector (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://dml.cmnh.org/1998Feb/msg00202.html a reliable source?
• Does http://www.alligatorfarm.us/ have the right to reprint http://www.alligatorfarm.us/images/Research/Erickson%20et%20al.%202003.pdf?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Ealdgyth, the dml.cmnh.org mailing list is amazing - it has many if not most of the worlds' paleontologists on it. I think of it like a block written by a multitude of notable people in paleontology :) (I think we may have discussed this before somewhere) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, I removed the link to alligatorfarm.us for the Erickson paper, as I was not able to verify whether they had permission to reprint it. As for the Dinosaur Mailing List post, it is by Christopher Brochu, who has published several peer-reviewed papers on crocodyliform phylogeny (including some material that addresses Deinosuchus specifically). This meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, which states that "material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Moreover, the underlying fact (that the osteoderms of Deinosuchus are highly diagnostic) was also mentioned in Schwimmer's book and cited to there. I only cited the Brochu post because I liked his use of the phrase "bone granola" and wanted to add this to the article. FanCollector (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Double cite it to the book too and you're good to go. (Bone granola??? EEEW! Give me a medieval bishop ANY day.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Moral support - Since I reviewed this article and made some edits, I don't feel comfortable giving out a plain old support. However, if I didn't think it was a good candidate, I would have said so at Peer Review. J. Spencer (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks impressive, especially the prose. What are those italicized phrases next to the page numbers of Schwimmer? If they're chapter titles, I'd recommend putting them in quotation marks rather than italicizing them (or, if using citation templates, use the provided chapter= parameter for formatting). BuddingJournalist 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the chapter titles to use quotes instead of italics. FanCollector (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support (Moral or otherwise) like J. Spencer above I chipped in at Peer Review and gave the text a bit of a massage. Still, I think it fulfills all criteria now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not happy about the Schwimmer article references. Reference #1 sort of establishes all the information for the other Schwimmer references. What if somewhere down the road #1 needs to be changed? Then all subsequent citations won't make sense. One of the reasons we moved on from superscripts and such was so that Wikipedia articles could "live." I'm going to try something different for #2. If you guys hate it, just tell me, but it's an idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support I made some changes to the citations to make them cleaner. Also there were a couple of errors in links that I corrected. If you all dislike my revisions, please revert. Otherwise, a great article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review —

• File:Deinosuchus hatcheri.JPG and File:Kritosaurus BW.jpg — I am not familiar with the particulars for Wikiproject Paleontology, but as far as I have noticed, most other subjects at FAC would prefer a source for any derivative images used (I presume it would be for a close reflection of what reliable sources depict the subjects to be). Should references be provided for these two images?
• File:Deinosuchus size estimate comparison chart.svg — the chart states references by author names, but there is not a reference list in the description page. This would not be a useful image if it was used outside the article without those references or if an editor changes/removes those references from the article. I suggest placing the references in the image page.

The rest of the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately CC licensed. The two above issues should be simple to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No response on the image issues ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added the full citations to the size chart, and a source for the head reconstruction used for the Kritosaurus image (hadrosaurids were conservative in their postcrania, so the body is generic hadrosaur; if that's problematic, an image of another herbivorous dinosaur that shares a formation with Deinosuchus could be substituted). I can't speak to the taxobox image. J. Spencer (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a review throughout of logical punctuation, per WP:PUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.