463:
force-displaying
Dinosauria and Theropoda if it looks like it will stop messing up enantiornithine taxoboxes, but that might be a job for somebody with better programming skill. I'd avoid displaying Dromaeosauroidea as that taxon, while technically it has been coined and defined, is almost never used and is currently redundant with Dromaeosauridae (as is, probably, Deinonychosauria). EDIT: Ok I think I fixed Dinosauria and Theorpoda to always display without breaking anything. Sauropsida has been set to always display the whole time but seems to only work on certain articles, not sure why...
42:
386:
One thing that does not really disturb the quality of the article but that should be mentioned nonetheless is about the taxobox. Shouldn't it be in
Dromaeosaurinae and in it necessary to have Deinonychosauria? After all the authors placed it in Dromaeosaurinae and no-one has really disagreed, and
462:
The hierarchy was set up with birds in mind, really, since too many force-displayed taxa (which seemed rather arbitrary anyway) were breaking deeply nested taxoboxes. Avemetatarsalia seemed a good choice for navigational purposes to show how it relates to other sauropsids. We could try
447:
Yeah, since
Dromaeosauroidea is mentioned a lot in the article. Not sure about Eudromaeosauria though. Some of the other clades seem a bit arbitrary? Why no Dinosauria? Why no Theropoda? And why Avemetatarsalia? Perhaps Dinoguy knows, he seems to have structured the original taxobox.
591:
I think the Type
Species displaying the binomial is enough, no? I transcluded Avemetatarsalia straight to Sauropsida eliminating the too many taxa issue, so it's now displaying Sauropsida and Animalia correctly.
637:
Other than those few I have found nothing wrong. I will read it again to find any other things that could prevent it from becoming a GA or cross out comments that have been solved or were read wrong.
723:
Very cool to see further dinosaur articles heading for GA. I've read the article carefully, and found neither a single issue nor lacking information. Just want to thank you for this great article! --
497:
It's because
Dinosauria is a clade, Theropoda a suborder and Avemetetarsalia is a (?) . The taxobox shows all "important" ranks, Phylum, Class, Order (Saurischia) and Family (Dromaeosauridae).
557:
Well after this review I think I'll try to get the articles I've created or at least expanded to be as large as I can and possibly to G or FA. How do you nominate an article?
344:
One of these sites is "Carl
Nielsen's sandpit" in the Robbedale valley (not to be confused with the Robbedale Formation, where no vertebrate fossils have been found). ...
47:
80:
511:
You're getting a hang of the Wiki coding stuff! Next up, you should almost start writing full articles, isn't that hard, as long as you've got the right sources.
543:
Yep. I'm thinking more that you could take articles you like to GA or FA if you wanted. Getting sources is pretty easy, even if you don't have access yourself.
70:
163:
As a taxon only known from two teeth I find that the article almost meets good article criteria. The only this preventing it from being a good article are:
126:
338:
There are also medium to large size spaces of information without refs. The only one that is important to the overall outcome of the article is in
122:
52:
156:
107:
99:
682:
Thanks, there was a lot of technical information in the papers, so took quite some time to have it make sense for laypeople...
75:
405:
I was thinking about that too, trouble is,I can't figure out the automatic taxobox. If you can, feel free to put it in.
728:
673:
642:
611:
582:
562:
534:
502:
438:
424:
392:
371:
286:
258:
150:
669:
638:
607:
578:
558:
530:
526:
498:
434:
420:
388:
367:
282:
254:
146:
115:
17:
253:
I think it should be "below it in the
Nemiodon beds, ..." or at least "below it (the Nemiodon beds)".
724:
366:
Oh, when i checked them I must have checked the wrong ref or thought that it was about the filming.
703:
687:
659:
597:
548:
516:
484:
468:
453:
410:
357:
325:
272:
244:
215:
174:
668:
I have read it again and found nothing wrong. Good job on making an article about two teeth.
352:
If there is a large paragraph with a ref in the very end, that's the ref for the whole part.
339:
306:
188:
92:
699:
683:
655:
593:
544:
512:
480:
464:
449:
406:
353:
321:
268:
240:
211:
170:
210:
It was because the lagoon had already been mentioned before, but changed it anyway.
732:
707:
691:
677:
663:
646:
615:
601:
586:
566:
552:
538:
520:
506:
488:
472:
457:
442:
428:
414:
396:
375:
361:
329:
290:
276:
262:
248:
219:
178:
160:
433:
698:
And feel free to add more suggestions until the second opinion arrives.
230:
The bivalve
Neimiodon is found in abundance below (Nemiodon beds), ...
313:
It should be "Dromaeosauridea family" or "Dromaeosaurinae subfamily".
387:
134:
103:
267:
How about: "in the sediments below (Neomiodon Bed)"?
8:
232:It seems wrong, could just be how I read it.
30:
577:Should the taxobox have a binomial also?
311:members of the Dromaeosauridea subfamily
61:
33:
7:
24:
479:I think it looks nice, thanks!
1:
733:11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
708:00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
692:15:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
678:15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
664:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
647:14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
616:18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
602:18:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
587:18:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
567:17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
553:16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
539:16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
521:16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
507:16:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
489:00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
473:17:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
458:15:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
443:15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
429:15:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
415:15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
397:15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
376:15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
362:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
330:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
291:15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
277:15:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
263:15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
249:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
220:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
179:14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
161:14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
748:
527:the articles I've created
239:Which part seems wrong?
169:Thanks forthe review!
18:Talk:Dromaeosauroides
340:Discovery and naming
342:. It starts with
320:Fixed to family.
199:, wouldn't it be
89:
88:
739:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
747:
746:
742:
741:
740:
738:
737:
736:
725:Jens Lallensack
147:Reid,iain james
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
745:
743:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
525:Have you seen
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
400:
399:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
347:
346:
335:
334:
333:
332:
315:
314:
307:Classification
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
234:
233:
225:
224:
223:
222:
205:
204:
184:
183:
182:
181:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
744:
735:
734:
730:
726:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
617:
613:
609:
606:That's fine.
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
419:Ok. Will do.
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
385:
384:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
196:
190:
186:
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
722:
636:
343:
310:
229:
200:
194:
192:
189:Paleoecology
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
193:represents
104:visual edit
594:MMartyniuk
465:MMartyniuk
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
670:Iainstein
639:Iainstein
608:Iainstein
579:Iainstein
559:Iainstein
531:Iainstein
499:Iainstein
435:Iainstein
421:Iainstein
389:Iainstein
368:Iainstein
283:Iainstein
255:Iainstein
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
700:FunkMonk
684:FunkMonk
656:FunkMonk
545:FunkMonk
513:FunkMonk
481:FunkMonk
450:FunkMonk
407:FunkMonk
354:FunkMonk
322:FunkMonk
269:FunkMonk
241:FunkMonk
212:FunkMonk
171:FunkMonk
157:contribs
76:Criteria
281:Great.
228:Also -
203:lagoon?
127:history
108:history
94:Article
654:Cool!
197:lagoon
136:Watch
16:<
729:talk
704:talk
688:talk
674:talk
660:talk
643:talk
612:talk
598:talk
583:talk
563:talk
549:talk
535:talk
517:talk
503:talk
485:talk
469:talk
454:talk
439:talk
425:talk
411:talk
393:talk
372:talk
358:talk
326:talk
287:talk
273:talk
259:talk
245:talk
216:talk
175:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
305:In
195:the
187:In
731:)
706:)
690:)
676:)
662:)
645:)
614:)
600:)
585:)
565:)
551:)
537:)
529:?
519:)
505:)
487:)
471:)
456:)
441:)
427:)
413:)
395:)
374:)
360:)
328:)
309:-
289:)
275:)
261:)
247:)
218:)
191:-
177:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
727:(
702:(
686:(
672:(
658:(
641:(
610:(
596:(
581:(
561:(
547:(
533:(
515:(
501:(
483:(
467:(
452:(
437:(
423:(
409:(
391:(
370:(
356:(
324:(
285:(
271:(
257:(
243:(
214:(
201:a
173:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.