Talk:Opisthotonic death pose

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.

edits needed[edit]

This article could use some edits for encyclopedia-inappropriate language, e.g. "...does not seem believable either" and "... think it all comes down to a dip in the wet stuff." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.113.128 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?[edit]

The third paragraph of this article, "Alicia Cutler and colleagues from..." appears to have been taken word for word from New Scientist magazine, with only minor edits to the first sentence. Ae491 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic title[edit]

The term "death pose" is so generic that it could refer to anything. It could be called something more specific instead, such as "dinosaur death pose". FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

Wish I had the time to fix it. First two sources are 404s. Third source citation appears incorrect (better link: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/div-classtitlethe-opisthotonic-posture-of-vertebrate-skeletons-postmortem-contraction-or-death-throesdiv/BBF1E1728738460584BDA29F3A8C9207). Fourth source is a media article discussing the third source. And it appears the conclusion of the fifth source is misrepresented. There are several links to nonexistent terms. A couple studies not addressed:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-012-0910-7 https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jzo.12287 Roguetech (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this even warrants an article, to be honest, perhaps it would be better merged with something, like taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]