Talk:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs/GA1

GA Review

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

Intro

Hello! I'm weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I'll be your GA-reviewer. For reference during this process, you can see the criteria here. The review should be completed in 7 days, probably sooner. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Thanks, and good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review will be here tomorrow - weebiloobil (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thank you for your time! J. Spencer (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Have a free GA review! GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A reasonable article, with a few issues to clear up.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
No noticeable slips or mistakes

B. MoS compliance:
Hmm. There are an awful lot of 'mays', eg "The first attempts to understand dinosaurs may have started thousands of years before they were officially named." This be a word to avoid. A simple rewording will suffice. A bigger problem is the lead, which is full of hyperbole and POV stuff. Have a crakc at the lead; if you need any more advice, message me.
I can only find 2 "may"s. As for the intro, I tried to make it more formal but I am still having problems. Some help would be appreciated. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Although some would disagree, I think the (1960) or whatever dates are useful, and add to the article, as it discusses the history of things. Well done.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Possible, with "However, external events and changing scientific perceptions would soon freeze the public image of dinosaurs as sluggish, maladapted monsters.", and "one milestone". Otherwise, fine.
done? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Nice organisation of content.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
This also concerns the lead, see above. Little bits peppered throughout the article as well. Very serious, so must speak with words missing. Or not.
ha? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
I can't imagine that many edit wars over an article about depictions of dinosaurs.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
I love the caption on the Protoceratops, by the way.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I've put the article on hold. The second half is much better than the first. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Good luck!

The lead

Okay, so the lead is a bit of a problem. As requested by Nergaal above, here is some stuff to helpfull improve the lead (with a basis in WP:LEAD):

The lead as it stands (as of this revision) -

In popular understanding, dinosaurs tend to be seen as creatures of fantastic appearance and usually of enormous size. Their unusual properties have allowed dinosaurs to become an enduring part of the popular culture, although along with this popularity have come important misconceptions about their lives and surroundings. Dinosaur exhibitions, parks, and museum exhibits around the world cater to and reinforce this public interest. The popularity of dinosaurs is additionally reflected in a broad array of fictional and non-fictional works including films, books, comics, and television shows.[1][2][3][4]

The lead of WP:LEAD -

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contentsand first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

Now, some points about the lead -

"In popular understanding" - how popular? who is it popular amongst? what's this understanding? is there any proof for this?

"dinosaurs tend to be seen as..." - tend is non-specific, too ambiguous

"creatures of fantastic appearance and usually of enormous size" - fantastic? in what way? seems a bit POV. enormous - what does this mean? 2 meters? 10 meters? 100 meters? usually - do they grow a lot in pictures?

"unusual properties" - no discussion of this in the article, and unusual in what way? what do you mean 'properties'?

"allowed" - someone needs to allow things to become part of popular culture?

"enduring" - a bit POV

[1][2][3][4] - no need for 4 references, WP:LEAD says references are only needed for contraversial stuff. 4 seems a tad unnecessary

Hope that clears stuff up a bit, but if it you still need help, don't hesitate to ask - weebiloobil (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tore down the lead; try the new one on for size. J. Spencer (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any problems left? Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is still needs a bit of work, but I can deal with that myself. I should be finished in a couple of days, by which time it should be a Good Article - weebiloobil (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]