Misplaced Pages

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Diplodocus

I am nominating this article which has been worked on for some time now by a team of people, most of whom have worked on some other successful FA candidates like Stegosaurus. I feel it satisfies the criteria for FA status - it is impartial, comprehensive without being overly inclusive and has a good lead similar in format to otgher successful dinosaur FAs. Cas Liber 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as co-author. Cas Liber 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few references in the middle of a sentence, they need to be put after a comma or full-stop. There are also some short/stubby paragraphs that need to be expanded, removed or merged with others. References 34 and 35 have spaces, spaces need to be removed. I also believe brackets are overused to explain things and should be replaced with commas(of course slightly re-wording it). M3tal H3ad 12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(I have removed the spaces (well spotted!) and some sentences with parentheses. The ones with parentheses left I feel would be too confusing if changed to commas. If you can still see any others which could be changed please let me know) cheers Cas Liber 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(I have combined a couple of stubby paras, however this is tricky as there is a load of succinct info which doesn't lend itself easily to para combining. Will ruminate on this one)Cas Liber 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I've seen this idea that refs must go at the end of a sentence mentioned on several FACs now, and I don't know where it's coming from. Refs *usually* go after a full stop, but not always - there are instances where they are needed to cite a specific term or phrase mid-sentence. Per WP:FN, "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry misread the criteria. Ref comes after the comma, not before. There is a space for ref , in the imagebox and . M3tal H3ad 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(OK, got 'em all) Cas Liber 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as someone who helped with the writing. Mark t young 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object untill all the mistakes are fixed. There are some short and stubby paragraphs which need to be fixed.Daniel10 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(Umm Daniel, the paragraphs are no stubbier than the Red Panda article you've just nominated above. However, being constructive, I am having trouble combining others - can you let me know which ones you think can be combined?) cheers Cas Liber 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Not an actionable object unless you specify what mistakes you are referring to. Sandy (Talk) 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has contributed to the article. ArthurWeasley 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-author. Article is comprehensive and uses no less than 38 scientific papers (primary sources of professional quality) as reference: papers which span from discovery to 2006. This leads to an article that is factually accurate and up to date. Minority views (such as the now-discredited trunk, and old-style posture) are presented, but not given undue weight. Content is stable, and appears to conform to the Manual of Style (footnotes follow punctuation, one form of English, etc). Article was assembled by WikiProject Dinosaurs team, which consists of (among others) vertebrate paleontologists, PhD students, etc, who have come together to assemble this article. Befitting an animal the length of Diplodocus, this article is considerably longer than almost any other dinosaur article on Misplaced Pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (redundancy) As a third-party reader with absolutely very little knowledge about dinosaurs, I find it akward that there is a description inside the pronunciation parenthese. Literal description usually follows an etymological note (e.g. see Phonetics) and not after or even even inside a pronunciation note. Etymology statement and descriptive or literal meaning is already in place that the first one makes the second redundant (the 2nd being the the corrent one). But since I've not read a single dinosaur article, this may be consistent with others, so i'm placing a Light Support until a satisfactory explanation is given. --RebSkii 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for spotting that. I have taken out the first 'double beam' as it is explained fully a few lines further. As it stands it is now like Stegosaurus, another FA. It is tricky sometimes when there are a few more bits of info describing the etymology to put it straight away. In Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus the meaning is immediately obvious once given, while Stegosaurus and Diplodocus require a little explanation. cheers Cas Liber 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per above. now this articles conforms with WP:MOS Guideline for Wording which in turn passes FA Criteria number 2. --RebSkii 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as an illustrator of the article. Debivort 09:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Truly a credit to its authors and illustrators, and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Grace Note 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's an excellent article, just the kind of article Misplaced Pages can be proud of. SlimVirgin 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• SUPPORT. Amazingly comprehensive and well-written article with exceptional referencing. The people who work on these dinosaur articles have really done a good job and also made me interested in dinosaurs again...a passion i haven't engaged in since I was 7. —ExplorerCDT 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a drive-by :-) Great article. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a contributor to the article. Sphenacodon 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Metamagician3000 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support M&NCenarius 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Although the article doesn't grab me & it is by not the best of the dinosaur articles that have made FA status, it seems good enough to convince me to support. Seems comprhensive enough, but as I said, I have a weird feeling about it... Thanks a bunch & once again, great work from the Dino team! :) Spawn Man 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.