Talk:Balaur bondoc/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep things simple, I plan to review this article, and determine if it meets the criteria for GA status.

It needs to meet the following criteria: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it does not appear to meet any of the quick-fail criteria. So far so good. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

Prose and spelling/grammar seem at their best now. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fiction and list incorporation do not apply in this article (not counting the reference list, but I don't think that's counted in list incorporation, anyway), and the lead section and the layout of the article look like they follow their respective criteria well enough. Looks like that takes care of the criteria. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

All seems good now, in terms of referencing.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

This article does change a lot, but it's all good, constructive work; no edit-warring here! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

For illustrations, this is good. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:
- Referencing: The larger sections, "Description" and "Discovery", are largely uncited. The middle paragraph in "Description", in particular, lacks any inline citations period. I think the citations need to be more abundant.

The reason for this is because the primary reference is used at the end of the paragraph. It describes all the details that are listed in the description section. Do you think it is necessary to add it after each sentence instead of just at the end of the paragraph? Nergaal (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not after each sentence, no, but if the cites could be added in one or two more times throughout the larger paragraphs (1st and 2nd paragraphs in "Discovery", and 1st in "Description"), I think it would be better. I'm quite sure it is preferred not to have a long string of uncited sentences in a paragraph, but to have every sentence cited would indeed be overkill. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple. Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Grammar: This sentence: "The partial skeleton—which consists of a variety of vertebrae as well as much of pectoral and pelvic girdles and the limbs—was collected from the red floodplain mudstone of the Sebeş Formation of Romania." The "as well as much of pectoral and pelvic girdles" bit - I could be mistaken, but that just doesn't sound right. I don't fully understand the circumstances behind it, so I wouldn't know of a better way to word it, though. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the paragraph. Is it clear now? Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the wording in the phrase "as well as much of pectoral and pelvic girdles" that I was worried about, sorry. However, I do think the arrangment of the paragraph is better with those changes you've made. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably the technical terms. I've linked them. Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will do, yes. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I will try to answer/fix any issues raised. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other outstanding issues? Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Images: I'm not sure if it's necessary, but wouldn't it be better if the caption under the map image described what colouring represents the parts of Europe which were submerged during the Maastrichtian period. I can quickly guess that it's the parts highlighted in light blue, but I think it's a standard to mention this. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I got this. It is a topographic map, and it shows most of what is now Europe being submerged and full of smaller islands roughly of the size of Ireland. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarity: "Bondoc also has a secondary connotation: derived from the Turkish bunduk, "small ball", it alludes to the probable Asian origin of the ancestors of Balaur." I don't understand this part; why does a specific name half-derived from a Turkish word allude to probable Asian origins of the genus' ancestors? I might have missed something earlier - I'll read that part over again to make sure. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the authors say in their supporting information of the paper. I will clarify that it is authors' thinking. Nergaal (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But does the paper explain why the authors feel a Turkish word alludes to Asian origins? Readers might be confused by that part. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is their text: Bondoc is a Romanian folk word used to designate a clumsy, chubby creature (human or animal). The term itself is of Turkish origin (bunduk), and means “small ball”. The specific name alludes both to the small and autapomorphically robust shape of the animal (due to the wide pelvis and increased femoral extensor muscle mass), as well as its Asiatic biogeographical connections (as it is originally a Turkic word). Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... well, in that case, I suppose what's been done is about all that can be done. Meanwhile, I've tweaked the image caption mentioned in the preceding issue - I think it's alright now. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no highlights on the map. Essentially present Europe looked like the Caribbeans today, and the low depth regions like say Florida, are light blue. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, nothing on the map represents what areas of Europe were submerged in said era? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be able to clarify what is the map showing: File:TectonicReconstructionGlobal.gif. The last frame is present, and the second last one is the one in the article. Nergaal (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that did make it much clearer. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked this article against all the GA criteria, and I'm sure all will agree it's been a gruelling session, but our efforts have proved fruitful. This article's passed! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time you put in and for the great suggestions. Nergaal (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might be interested at least remotely in wp:SPK. Nergaal (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]