Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration/Velociraptor

This is the Dinosaur Collaboration page for Velociraptor. Please use the space below for discussion of the article. You can discuss changes, have facts checked, or simply tell us what you did to improve the article.

To Do List

~~Standardize taxobox.~~ - done
~~Rewrite lead.~~ - re-organised
~~Reorganize various description sections into one section.~~ - first attempt done
~~Add more historical information.~~ - done
Get pop culture section out of list format.
Find more pictures.
Add references.
Change inline citations to <ref> format. - Wait on this.
Rewrite text for general readability.
...

Discussion

Well, nobody else nominated anything, so I guess we should just go with this one. Sheep81 08:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my recommendations (a lot of them). Please feel free to rip me a new one if they are crappy:

Do we need to have Deinonychosauria in the taxobox? If so, we should probably add it for other dromaeosaurs too (and troodontids, etc).
Ditch the paleobox for the reasons I have stated many many times before. Ugh.
Except for the pronunciation, there should be no info in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. The lead paragraph should basically just summarize the article.
As far as the pronunciation goes, we should only have IPA pronunciations, I guess.
Although monospecific (maybe), Velociraptor is not a dinosaur "species" but a genus.
The organization is kind of weird, with specific sections devoted to particular body systems. Could all just be rolled into one section, right? I suppose the Feathers section is good as a discussion of whether or not it had them.
I think we could use a little more history... I can work on that.
The 'popular culture' section should be in paragraph form if this article is going to go anywhere as an FAC. Maybe a subsection for Jurassic Park?
More pictures! We only have two and one is not very useful. A picture of the Fighting Dinosaurs would be amazing.
The language is a little too jargon-y. For instance, "recurved" is a scientific term but a layperson reading the article wouldn't immediately know what it meant. We could use "hooked" or even "curved" instead. The article should sound authoritative but not too technical. I hope I am getting my point across here.
(edited to add) Oh yes, and the inline citations should probably be converted to the footnote format if this is going to go anywhere as an FAC. Politics...

That's all I got for now. Thoughts?Sheep81 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your points. Specific comments:

As an unranked taxon, which isn't even supported in half the modern analyses, and of which all dromaeosaurids are members, Deinonychosauria should probably ONLY be used on the pages for Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae.
Do condense the anatomy part. Feathers could be a subsection, maybe? Pop culture does need to be reworked. I actually started to create a JP subsetion the other day but didn't save it :)
I have some photos of the Fighting Dinosaurs from a few years back when they were o display at hte AMNH. They're far from pro quality and the lighting is pretty bad. I can upload them as a last resort if we can't find better pictures.
Might want to wait until the article approaches a more polished organization before adding the footnotes. I my experience the code is pretty cumbersome and it could easily get broken by mistake moving things around.

Dinoguy2 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

The only ref I seem to have for Velociraptor is the original description. Anybody know if others are available online?Dinoguy2 02:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Acta Paleontologica Polonica has an abstract online. I was hoping for the entire article, but alas:

Barsbold & Osmolska 1999

So does Nature:

Norell, Makovicky & Clark 1997

Lucky for us, the AMNH comes to the rescue with full-text PDF articles:

Norell & Makovicky 1997

Norell & Makovicky 1999

And of course there is Norell & Makovicky 2004 (sensing a theme here?), which is the Dromaeosauridae chapter in The Dinosauria (which you really ought to invest in).

BTW: Osborn 1924

Sheep81 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Barsbold 1983 has some information. This is from the Polyglot Paleontologist so there are unfortunately no figures but at least it is translated into English. Sheep81 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another paper you might want to check out: Carpenter 1998 (2000) has a large section about the fighting dinosaurs. Sheep81 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the papers guys! I managed to find a copy of The Dinosauria on amazon marketplace for $25, which is pretty cheap based on what I've heard. Hopefully it's really the 2nd edition.Dinoguy2 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I am actually halfway through rewriting the lead, but I have to go for like 30 minutes. I'll be back to finish it soon. Any edits you want to make to the article are fine, even if you want to mess with the lead, but just FYI. Sheep81 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - missed this message when I altered the 'lead'. I think it appeared in between my visits to this page - however, mine is not a re-write', so plenty of scope left! :-) - Ballista 03:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not a problem, I am currently merging the two edits... easy. Sheep81 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K, lead is done. Or at least we have a solid starting point. I expect it will not remain untouched, though. Sheep81 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

I've written up a bit of history. I divided it up into two sections (History & Provenance). Comments? Sheep81 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! You've probably got more sources than I do, but if I find more info it should be easy enough to merge it into what you've already written.Dinoguy2 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Been a bit busy so apols for late acknowledgement - Ballista 03:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

We need more pictures. The article wont make it anywhere near FAC with only two marginal pictures. The lead pic needs to be better. The second picture is too stylized to put in the lead, so it does basically nothing. Pictures people, pictures.... Spawn Man 04:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC). BTW, I've put the collaboration banner on the article page to show people. We are allowed to do this in case you're wondering... Spawn Man 04:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a life restoration of Velociraptor up on Image review. Any commonts?Dinoguy2 13:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found these (low quality) image of the fihting dinos on CNN [1]. I'm still not entirely clear on image uses from news articles, but, for what it's worth.Dinoguy2 13:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are credited to the AMNH so possibly you could ask someone there. Maybe they'll even have a higher resolution image? Sheep81 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]