Wikipedia:Peer review/Ankylosaurus/archive1

Ankylosaurus edit

This page has been worked on by several WikiProject:Dinosaurs participants, although I recently made a major edit. I would like to hear comments on style, organization, and other structural matters, as well as anything else anyone can think of. Eventually I do hope to nominate this or another dinosaur article for Featured Article status. Sheep81 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:
- Per WP:MOSDATE and WP:CONTEXT, years without full dates should not be linked generally.
- Please alphabetize the categories and the interwiki links.
- The "In popular culture" section should be prosified, or converted to paragraph form (like from this to this)
- I would prefer that the referencing be changed to WP:FOOTNOTEs, as is recommended by WP:WIAFA, but that is just the matter of preference. In Harvard referencing, there is no comma though (for example, (Carpenter, 2004) to (Carpenter 2004)
- Image:Ecran ankylosaurus.jpg will need a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC).
- Are there any useful external links? (see WP:GTL)
- The   (no-break space) should be added between numbers and their units of measure (for example, (74.5cm) to (74.5 cm). Converted units of measurements (the ones in parentheses) should use standard abbreviations.
Thanks, AndyZ _t 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions! I have a question on your first comment. When no date is given, I assume you just mean to un-wikilink the year, not remove reference to it, right? We will work on some of the other things right away also. Do you have any suggestions on the text? Did it seem to read well? Was there anything, as a general reader, that you would have liked to see discussed? Thank you so much for your input and to anyone else who contributes. Sheep81 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just de-link it, but keep the year. I'll respond to your questions asap. AndyZ _t 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found It is meant to refer to the fusion of many bones in the skull and body, so the intended meaning a bit confusing- perhaps it can be reworded.
What exactly are today's standards?
maximum width is redundant with largest known
the feet are not well-known sounds rather odd, and should be reworded
the section Description tends to jump between the present and past tense; it should be mostly one or the other.
in the skin, as in crocodiles, armadillos, and some lizards This indicates that crocodiles and armadillos are in the skin of the dinosaur.
Is Ankylosaurus is very rare in these sediments referring to fossils?

AndyZ _t 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will attempt to clarify these sections tonight. Sheep81 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and description does not make it as clear as it should be that the genus is monospecific. Also, an image for the taxobox would be nice,I moved the Walking With Dinosaurs one tehre, but it should be possible to unearth something (fossils, for examples). Circeus 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make it more clear that there is only one species. I think the WWD picture has to stay down near the text which refers to the series for fair-use reasons. The taxobox could use a picture though, you are right. We will try to find one. Thank you! Sheep81 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll add to my queries later, but should the image Image:Anguirus.jpg be there? The photo is of a fictional creature which only is similar to ankylosaurus at best, is named differently & is under fair use copyright. The image should be deleted. Spawn Man 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]