Talk:Styracosaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Styracosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
Styracosaurus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
Contents |
[edit] bonebed in Arizona??
Hey, does anybody know anything about the bonebed discovery from Arizona? can't find anything on google Cas Liber 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've found nothing, either, so I've removed it. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A to-do list of sorts
My, someone's been busy! The article is looking great and getting close to FA nomination (this is an all-too-premature congratulations).
Ideas:
- I think there's some stuff floating around on the sort of environment styracosaurus may have lived in that would be good ot put in Paleobiology - and possibly expand on the herding bit. Am at work at the moment so can't do too much. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the idea of sexual dimorphism is fascinating and there must be more material to add to that discussion somewhere. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- My thanks to both you and Dinoguy for the fixes. I'm not sure this article is anywhere close to FA status, but GA might be passable. I've submitted to scientific peer review for a once-over. It is my hope that there's someone there qualified to review it.
- I agree the herding issue must be discussed somewhere: no herding evidence has been found for this genus, as far as I'm aware: only isolated individuals have been found (no bonebed). I will gladly try to scrape together more bits on the sexual dimorphism angle, but it's awfully late here. I know that you're at work, and awfully busy, but if you find something later on, feel free to add it. Again, thank you very much for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can't find anything else directly on Styracosaurus: the question is whether the article benefits from indirect discussion eg. adding bit on likely Protoceratops dimorphism and inferring that Styracosaurus may be as well. The same goes for embellishing on herding behaviour. The article is nuice and well-rounded. Qustion is, is it long enough? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Long enough? Probably not. I plan to add a few more bits, as suggested in peer review, but even then, it likely will only be as long as Albertosaurus, the shortest FA. Don't sweat it, though, Cas. GA is not out of reach. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find anything else directly on Styracosaurus: the question is whether the article benefits from indirect discussion eg. adding bit on likely Protoceratops dimorphism and inferring that Styracosaurus may be as well. The same goes for embellishing on herding behaviour. The article is nuice and well-rounded. Qustion is, is it long enough? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hey, check out another FA - Make Way for Ducklings - I just highlight this as if the information is limited then comprehensiveness can be achieved with a shorter page. I reckon this looks really good now. Question is, do the others agree? Circeus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- Good point, Cas; that article is only 16.9, considerably shorter than this one. I was just worried that people would comment that this article isn't as comprehensive as other dinosaur articles (because it's shorter), but J. has corrected a few of my mistakes, added more refs, and the article is now 23k long, 13th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. I've just sent this article to GA, but do you think it's FA-suitable? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, check out another FA - Make Way for Ducklings - I just highlight this as if the information is limited then comprehensiveness can be achieved with a shorter page. I reckon this looks really good now. Question is, do the others agree? Circeus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I do but I am generally satisfied before others, being way down on the slob-prefectionist axis. Circeus is the most thorough so if he's happy then I think it's all systems go....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You call yourself a slob, but I don't look at it like that. I think of all the work you put into Stegosaurus, for example, as top-notch. I do agree Circeus is extraordinarily thorough, though. Since J. contributed a lot to this article, I've asked him for input about this as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no, I didn't say I actually reached the slob end of the axis, just very close :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, I'm groaning at that terrible pun... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh no, I didn't say I actually reached the slob end of the axis, just very close :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You call yourself a slob, but I don't look at it like that. I think of all the work you put into Stegosaurus, for example, as top-notch. I do agree Circeus is extraordinarily thorough, though. Since J. contributed a lot to this article, I've asked him for input about this as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do but I am generally satisfied before others, being way down on the slob-prefectionist axis. Circeus is the most thorough so if he's happy then I think it's all systems go....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
OK -added a note from dinosauria. Shoudl be reworded but I gotta run now. Also - there is a section on pros and cons of herding being an explanation for bonebeds in dinosauria. Do we want this in here? If so I can add later too. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, please, if you can tie it in to Styracosaurus somehow. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Having been through it a couple of times now, I think it's pretty close. The only things that may be of concern are the differing ref formats (some using cite journal/book templates, some not) and the "rediscovery of the S. parksi site" info; wish we could find a source there. J. Spencer 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your thorough copyedit, the units of measurement no longer adhere to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. Units are supposed to be spelled out, unless they appears in parentheses. The example they give is: "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" or "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's rather curious. It makes more sense to spell each term out once and then shorten the rest of the way. I suppose the terms in parentheses are so well known as to not require being spelled out once? I shall give someone a piece of my mind, once someone tells me where I left it. J. Spencer 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why they've chosen to do it that way, but someone made that decision and it somehow become consensus. Like the in-line citation craze, which I personally don't like very much. Thank you for fixing it. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's rather curious. It makes more sense to spell each term out once and then shorten the rest of the way. I suppose the terms in parentheses are so well known as to not require being spelled out once? I shall give someone a piece of my mind, once someone tells me where I left it. J. Spencer 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your thorough copyedit, the units of measurement no longer adhere to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. Units are supposed to be spelled out, unless they appears in parentheses. The example they give is: "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" or "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having been through it a couple of times now, I think it's pretty close. The only things that may be of concern are the differing ref formats (some using cite journal/book templates, some not) and the "rediscovery of the S. parksi site" info; wish we could find a source there. J. Spencer 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article is unusually scant of images, so if anyone got some images of skeletons or similar, it would be cool to have them uploaded. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any images of Styracosaurus laying around. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] EL
One of the external links in 404. I commented it out. Would anyone familiar with that site get it right please? -- Y not? 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. It's no longer hosted by the University, but I think it was working recently. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Repeated refs
If you look through the references, Dodson (1996) is repeated four or five times. It's a great book, but... Sheep81 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- They are not repeated references. During one FACing, I was told by an established FAC reviewer that specific page references should be done for each citation. Footnote #3 references pages 165–169. Footnote #12 references pages 197–199. Footnote #18 references page 244. Footnote #30 references page 266, and #33 references page 269. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
