Jump to content

Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewed: Fewer than 5 past noms, no QPQ required
  • Comment: I don't have a direct source for generally positive reviews, but I haven't been able to find a single review that didn't primarily praise the book. If this is an issue I can reword the hook to exclude that.
Created by Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Rusalkii: Article is long enough, well sourced, and is free from copyvio (apart from direct quotes from reviews, obviously). Article is new enough: published into mainspace the same day DYK was submitted. The hook is interesting, but I couldn't access the hook source directly due to a paywall. It doesn't affect the DYK nom but there are a lot of sources like that in the article; I would recommend adding accessible archived URLs for the sources like that if you get a chance. One pedantic thing before approval: since the original quote says that he "is" so nice, the word "was" in the hook should be moved outside of the quotation marks since it's not a direct quote. Other than that there's nothing preventing this from approval on good faith. Kimikel (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I have some notes and sources that I didn't end up working into the article at User:Rusalkii/The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs Rusalkii (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks you for creating a page on this book; for future new pages, remember to link the article from elsewhere and to add categories so that the article you've created can be more easily found by others.

Klbrain (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. 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). Checked most of the sources and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction synopsis needs to be sourced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. I'm going to place this on hold until the nominator addresses the points I have raised thus far. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed due to inactivity. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.