Talk:Dimorphodon

Palaeontology: Pterosaurs High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pterosaurs task force (assessed as High-importance).

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Dimorphodon is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reasons why the Flickr link is a decent source

1.The gallery belongs to the pterosaur researcher (Mark Witton) that, alongside Darren Naish, wrote the essay on azhdarchid paleoecology

2.The points given make sense (read the text for the info on the wing loading, claws and head size)

3.Dimorphodon, according to the article, was a descendent of Peteinosaurus, itself a terrestrial form; wouldn't it make more sense if Dimorphodon continued in that line?

I hope I cleared everything --Falconfly —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again, take a look at what I wrote on my talk page. Remember, we should directly cite the papers the research has been done in, not some other page which just refers to it, and point 3, that's pretty much what's called "original research" on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]