Talk:Vulcanodon

Vulcanodon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 23, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Raath ?

Raath ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.138.189.207 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vulcanodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This will mark my first review of a dinosaur article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

There is absolutely no issue with this article. An enjoyable read as well. Excellent work and congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important New Paper

New paper has just hit, pushing the taxon back about 15 million years. [1] Lusotitan 19:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not much from the paper can be used in the article body except in Discovery and naming. No concrete date either, somewhat disappointing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoecology? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Some talk of the surrounding matrix, but no real interpretation. There's also an indet. massospondylid mentioned. Doesn't make for a very well-rounded section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky us. Their paper gives a very generalized age assessment, but they do have a time calibrated phylogeny, which has Vulcanodon as 199-188 mya. As its included in the published paper this is about as good as we will get without actual elemental decomp analysis. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IJReid, I just noticed the old foot diagram was removed, but isn't it more useful than having two photos of similar models? And isn't the first model weird in not showing fingers? Also has the nostrils too far up in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because its a bit old and misleading in lacking the external toes, but I am not opposed to it being readded. I would edit it if I could remember the source for the dorsal views but I can't. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, maybe it should wait then. But is that first model's fingers accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Vulcanodon Poznan.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]