Talk:Sauropelta

Musings...

If we're working up to GA etc...

Scientifically, Sauropelta is one of the best-known nodosaurids...

"Scientifically" possibly redundant here? Although as I write this I am reminded of pop culture. In which case maybe substitute "understood" for known.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise looks really good.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll change it. Sheep81 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work here Sheep! Don't worry about leaning too heavily on Carpenter--as you said, he has done most of the work, and it seems like he's summarized/re-evaluated much of the earlier work in his papers as well. Dinoguy2 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I won't worry then. Sheep81 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you wokring up to nominate this for FA? would easily pass GA as is I reckon and not too far off FA...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably GA material: it's only slightly shorter than our shortest FA, Albertosaurus, so it seems comprehensive. I can't find any serious issues that would bar it from GA status. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Picked this one up about ten minutes ago (from timestamp on my signature). I'll place questions, comments, painful wails of grief here. Do give me a day or two. Thanks! — Gosgood 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! We look forward to your suggestions. Sheep81 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First pass remarks

These remarks are based on version 135497624, 02:41, 3 June 2007, as edited by Sheep81 Key: : you are past the gate. : I think you've got some work to get to FA, but it suffices for the overall "decent, satisfactory" criteria of GA. : You've got a little work to do for GA.

Second pass remarks

Unless this article's custodians, frequent contributors, project managers and the like ask me to do otherwise, I'll do the second pass on this version, 137106108, 16:22, 9 June 2007 as edited by Sheep81, and I do that over the next hour or three. I'll amend the table below with additional remarks and final review status. Take care. — Gosgood 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've concluded my review. I believe this constitutes a good article. See particular remarks below. Take care — Gosgood 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. It is well written. In this respect	Overall (1) Oppose, but quick fix. I have trouble with the lead; it seems light. See remarks at (1b). As for the body, Decently written. I do get an occasional whiff of not especially useful passive voice. It has been suggested that hides who is doing the suggesting. But 'who' is suggesting can be very nearly as significant as what is being suggested. Carpenter and Olshevsky suggest that... opens up this second channel of information: the person(s) holding the opinion. Not a show stopper for "decently written, satisfactory" GA articles, in my judgement, but "for the best" I recommend a passive --> active conversion to flag which authorities are venturing what kinds of opinions. Agree With the 2007-06-09 version, lead paragraph now highlights the main topics of the article. Use of passive voice has been minimized. Minor comment on style. With the second reading, adverbs such as "characteristically long" or "Dramatically large" grate; they express an author's point of view, if but over a limited scope. I'm not sure that such prompting from the author of the reader's sensibility is even needed: examples of such orotund wording are followed by precise and referenced data that establish what is meant. To my way of thinking, it is these latter sentences that do the work; the fanfare sentences could be struck with little or no loss of content.
	(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and	Agree, with qualifications. My own suggestion, without bearing on GA or FA, but I would consider casting the prose in the present tense at some point. Yes, the creatures died a hundred million years or so ago, as past tense as anything can get. But the specimens and the scholarship are in the here-and-now. Even as I write, AMNH 3035 is a three quarters of an hour subway ride away (for me at any rate: I live in Brooklyn), the roof of the skull is still very thick and still exhibiting flat, bony plates that are tightly fused. If you buy my argument, then you get a free pass to write in the present tense, That makes technical expository easier because neither writer nor reader has to keep track of time shifting.
	(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.	Oppose-But a quick fix. Layout: fine. Jargon: I enjoy the way you've parenthetically explained or wiki-linked to the hard stuff. I question wiki-linking too obvious concepts such as triangular or conical for this audience; Words to avoid: a touch of passive voice. List incorporation: You don't incorporate lists. How nice. Fiction: does not apply to this article. Lead: Um. I think the lead is thin. But for a semicolon the other day, you haven't touched the lead since May 16, when the article was half it's present size. Time to sync up. Two items caught my eye that strike me as useful lead information (there may be more) Sauropelta is the earliest known nodosaurid genus. That's a nice gem which orients me in time. "Its estimated mass is 1500 kilograms (3300 lb)" nothing in the lead presently hints at how much the creature weighs, which is a datum on par with its spatial dimensions, which are stated in the lead. Agree With the 2007-06-09 version, lead paragraph now highlights the main topics of the article.
	2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:	Overall (2), Agree.
	(a) provides references to sources used;	Agree. Carpenter. A lot of reliance on Carpenter. But he does seem to be the fellow doing the work.
	(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and	Agree.
	(c) contains no original research.	Agree.
	3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:	Overall (3), Oppose, but a quick fix (I think).. I am wondering if a Paleobiology section can be supported. And, I think Environment has wandered off topic a bit.
	(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and	Neutral. Are there sufficient data for a Paleobiology discussion? Growth rate? How long did specimens live? Solitary, or travel in herds? I'm thinking of the section on a similar article Albertosaurus. If the data are insufficient, then perhaps a small section stating as such, as in Stegopelta. Custodians and article contributors have not addressed this suggestion. As noted above, I don't think the absence of this section bars it from the "decent, satisfactory" articles that constitute the body of Good Articles.
	(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).	Oppose, but a quick fix (I think). The Environment is detached somewhat from the article topic, At about the third paragraph ("Most of the sediment in the Cloverly is mudstone..." I go "Huh? this is all very well and good, but wasn't I reading about an Early Cretaceous nodosaurid called Sauropelta?" I think you've let the discussion drift into the Cloverly formation and it is readling like generic prose. I don't think you are very far off the path, however. Recall Albertosaurus#Environment: I'm told the dinosaur was a dominant predator in the fauna. If you could write a few bridging sentences that similarly relate Sauropelta to the Cloverly environs, then you are home free. Yes? As of the 2007-06-09 version, Agree The Environment section has been substantially rewritten and is now clearly a discussion about Sauropelta in the fauna that has been preserved in the Cloverly Formation.
	4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.	Agree.
	5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.	Neutral. What with Sheep81 quintupling the article size in about three weeks, I don't think the word 'stable' quite applies, but the growth of the article has been coherent. If it were my article, I would have let the thing stew for a month before bringing it to GA review, on the slight possibility that a passing editor might offer an improvement, and on the possibility that shortcomings are often more obvious after a month or so of doing other things. This is not a show stopper though.
	6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.	Neutral. Images are are indeed appropriate, and permissions are in place. But I don't feel that visualisation accompanying this article is optimal. In the taxobox, I think John.Conway offers a fine drawing, though it is nicer in the Commons at full resolution. However, as an aid to technical exposition, it annoys me. With the point of view directed toward the left quadrant, the length of the creature is foreshortened, and the shoulder occludes a part of the neck. Second, I am not entirely fond of Sauropelta.gif Even at full resolution in the Commons it looks like a scaled-down image from something that had been perhaps twice or three times the resolution, so it is not easy to study and get useful information. And, according to the caption, the story it tells is not entirely current. I don't think this stops the show for GA, but for FA, better illustrations should be prepared. Perhaps if Dinoguy2 could be tempted to do one of his scaled diagrams, it would create a one-eyeful summary of the shape of the dinosaur in relation to the size of a person. In that regard it would augment John.Conway's more illustrative work. This is not a GA show stopper, but for FA, I think some work needs to be done here. As of 2007-06-09, Agree Dated Sauropelta.gif has been replaced with Image:Sauropelta.png, which shows the animal in profile, scaled in relation to a person, clearly illustrating its size and shape.
	7. Overall	On hold Scan the article. Revisit the lead. Sync it up. Environment: A bridge sentence or two that tells me what niche Sauropelta occupied in the environment. Other than that, a solid G.A. Everything else I whined about (the neutral votes) would be nice for F. A. preparation, which, I trust you will do in the fullness of time. I believe the on-hold state is good for up to seven days, so I'll revisit in a week for the second pass, or sooner if you give me a yell. Take care. — Gosgood 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Approve This program has been successfully carried out. I would like to thank Sheep81 for his custodial efforts in sheparding this article through the good article evaluation process, along with other editors of WikiProject Dinosaurs who contributed behind the scenes.

Deinonychus

Is there evidence that Deinonychus preyed on/fed on Sauropelta? This is stated as a fact in the article, and if there's no direct or association evidence it should probably be changed to something like "fed on Tenontosaurus and may have fed on Sauropelta as well." Dinoguy2 10:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "fed on some of these herbivores". Nice and vague. :) Sheep81 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cloverly Formation: merge/cross link opportunity?

I've come across this article, still a bit in the start state, to which Anky-man contributes. Seems some of the generic, backstory prose you have in Environment could migrate there, where it could support a number of articles, and then here the dicussion can become pretty focussed on Sauropelta, No? Keep up the good work! Check in early next week. Gosgood 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think I've removed a lot of the backstory and just left in the details that directly relate to Sauropelta: the age, the environment of the time, how the Cloverly times (and Sauropelta) ended, and the other fauna of the time, which would have interacted with Sauropelta. I left in the information at the end about faunal transition because I think it puts Sauropelta and the rest of the fauna in context. Plus it is interesting, I think. I'll see about transferring some of the deleted prose to Cloverly Formation. Anyway there may be a few more changes on the way but so far I think we are making good progress. Thanks a lot for your work on this! Sheep81 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Parsons & Parsons

I suspect that the skull discussed in several SVP abstracts by Parsons & Parsons as possibly Sauropelta was later described as Tatankacephalus. The general location (Middle Dome region of Wheatland Co, MT), stratigraphy (Cloverly VII), and material sync up. J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)