Talk:Azilestes

Azilestes 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: August 12, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance 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. Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Azilestes/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The specimen was found by surface prospecting northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil. - might wanna reword that. Grammatically correct but had to read it a couple of times to confirm....

It preserves only part of the mandibular corpus - is "mandibular corpus" same as "body of mandible"?

Can the Palaeoecology section be expanded at all? e.g. is it temperate/tropical/riparian/montane/forest/desert......

Sorry for taking so long to reply! I'll have to address these later, as I haven't got much time. All I can say right now is that there is no information on the palaeoenvironment of the Grès de Labarre. Borophagus (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No dramas - happy to leave these open for an extended period. article is in good shape and on track - am reduced to quibbles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's all good. Looking up the definition of the mandibular corpus, it looks like it's basically just the body of the mandible. I might be wrong, but the medical dictionary lists it as: "the heavy, U-shaped, horizontal portion of the mandible extending posteriorly to the angle where it is continuous with the ramus; it supports the lower teeth." Also, now I have time to address the other point. Would this be better? "The specimen was found in the northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil, by surface prospecting in the area."

ETA: Would it be possible to address any of those quibbles? Borophagus (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are fossil articles always this technical?

WP:TECHNICAL. —Eewilson (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

While not quite as technical (I admit to getting a little carried away in places), the article for Monolophosaurus is an example of a technical palaeontology article. Borophagus (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Another example is Dromaeosauroides. Borophagus (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry got sidetracked. Will check today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research

:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

fair use rationales

:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

suitable captions

:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: (bar minor rewording which is not a deal-breaker) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]