Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Velociraptor

Velociraptor[edit]

Note:This article is already an FA. Please discuss any further changes to the article on the article's talk page.

Recently collaborated on by the Dinosaur collaboration. Very good article & has come a long way from a few weeks ago. Would be great on the main page as it is a very popular dinosaur & the article is so informative I doubt much will need to be done to it. Spawn Man 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article can (and should) become FA material but not in its present form. It needs some work still. The description section is too short and includes some one sentence paragraphs. The references are mixed up, with some in footnote form, others in Harvard style. I will fix that presently. Many red links in the history and provenance sections, which could use copyediting. The history of classification section is a little POV ("It is becoming increasingly likely..."). Information in the history section is repeated in the predation section and should probably be removed from one or the other. The entire article could use copyediting. So basically, not quite ready yet, but soon. I'll do some work tonight. Sheep81 01:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove red links. Expanded Description section a fraction, & merged other sections to deplete 1 sentencers... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed red links. Also removed external link only available in German! Thanks, Spawn Man 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shifted repeated text from the history section & placed it in the predation section. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed (by myself and others), but since I have worked so heavily on this article and am involved in WikiProject Dinosaurs, I feel I should abstain from officially supporting the article. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couple of suggestions. First off "In Jurassic Park" and "In Popular Culture" should almost certainly be merged, as Jurassic Park is definetly a subseciton of Pop Culture in general. Second, if at all possible, an image of the "distinctive" claw mentioned numerous times in the article would be very very nice. I know one of the supposed claws featured large in the first Jurassic Park, though given the numerous mentions of literary license taken with those 'raptors a pic of the real claw would be nice. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections merged. Will get pic soon. Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a picture of the sickle claw, but this picture has it shown. Will this picture do if none of the project members can't find a picture either? Thanks, Spawn Man 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. As soon as the popular culture sections are merged properly, I will support. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied, but as long as others have outstanding copyright and reference concerns, I'm afraid I can't strictly support yet. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference concerns have been addressed by nominator, myself, User:Firsfron, and others.Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this article clearly is the best we've got...as long as someone else nominates a better article, my support is with this one. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Minor oppose, for two reasons. First, why are some of the references Harvard style and some in cite format? Second, I'm not wild about a couple of the photos, particularly this one and this one. The first one is just... well, it's just bad. I can barely tell what it's supposed to be. The lighting is washed out and there's a line (I assume an edge of the display case) running right through it. The second one, although I'll grant you that it's in the pop culture section, is silly. "Highly stylized" is really just a nice way of saying "completely inaccurate". It's a silly statue, and the park that statue is in is not mentioned in the section anyway. If the references can all get on the same page and the photos can be replaced (or just removed) I would support. Kafziel 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get someone to edit the 2 fighting dinosaurs photo. The "highly stylised" photo, to be fair is in the pop culture section. It is just a statue to show the way humans have distorted the dinosaur's image through time. However if you want it removed, I will do so. Can you confirm you want it moved? Will do footnotes soon... Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure what the picture of the statue adds to the article. It's like a sculpture of a third-grader's drawing. It's standing on all four (pretty much equally sized) legs, with zany coloring and goofy teeth. But if I'm the only one who thinks so, I can let it go. If retouched and clarified, the fighting skeletons picture might be cool. I do have another question, though - as I understand it, it's just a theory that Velociraptor had feathers. It hasn't been proven yet. But both anatomical drawings in the article show him with feathers. Not to say they shouldn't be there, but the captions should mention that the drawings are based on the bird theory, not the fossil record.

Moving on... the main thing is the reference formatting. The section entitled "footnotes" should be entitled "references"; all of the contents are cited works, not notes. A couple of specific examples of problems:

There's a credit made to (Hwang, 2002). Footnote #5 is next to it, but #5 is for some completely different work from 2005, and it makes no mention of anyone named Hwang.

Removed, outdated. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reference, (Barsbold, R. and Osmolska, H., 1999) is in the "references" section, and nothing cites it.

Fixed. Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference, this one Osmolska by himself and from 1993, is cited in the body but has no mention in the references section.

Removed, unnecessary. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be others, but I figured there's no need to beat you over the head with it. Anyway, to sum up, I won't continue opposing over the pictures, but the references are really in need of major fixes. Kafziel 02:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of revising the entire set of references in the article, which will probably take me several hours. I've already made it down through the history section and should have the rest done in the near future. Also, (Halska) Osmolska is female. :) Sheep81 10:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have now revised all the references, putting them all in footnote format, adding new refs, and citing more passages using existing refs.[reply]

No problem. I'm not really up to date with the references & footnotes section as the layout has changed drastically since I featured Dinosaur. I guess I could have a go on my own, but I have asked someone else to help me... Below, someone asked me to state the general refs section as refs & the refs section as footnotes or citations. This is who I thought it was done. Is it okay if I stick with it, as I wouldn't want to rechange it & anger the other guy opposing down there... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bulk of my points have been addressed and fixed, so I have changed my vote to support. Good luck! Kafziel 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fair Use images lacking a fair use rationale. The references should preferably appear after punctuations (though I am not opposing for this). The section "General References" should be "References" and the current "References" be either "Notes", or "Citations". Couple of single sentence paragraphs can be merged into existing paragraphs to avoid breaking flow. Non-breaking spaces ( ) needs to be added between numbers and units. Once these issues are fixed, the article is worth the FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with fair use rationale, could you give me some pointers? I thought you just put on what it was from, eg tv program, & hey presto you have image? Will fix footnotes. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Non-breaking spaces ( ) needs to be added between numbers and units? Would you be able to explain more so I can fix the problem. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Fair Use rationale see Help:Image page. As an example, you may want to refer to this image. I myself fixed the non-breaking space problem. Refer to my edits for future. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed extra spaces before references. I noticed at some places, references were provided in article text and not in footnotes. I have indicated an example in the text by commenting. I also found that though written professionally, in order to have consistancy and allow easy understanding (and expansion in the future), references may need to be standardised using one of the cite formats (eg {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}). Also, I noticed that the article everywhere uses hyphen-dash. Please use emdash, endash, or minus at appropriate places (See WP:DASH). For an example, I have corrected one use in the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed footnotes & references titles. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although you weren't opposing for it, I placed inline citations after punctuation. Hope this helps, Spawn Man 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided rationale for the pictures in question. I hope that is what you meant. Spawn Man 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FU rationale for time magazine is satisfactory, but not for Image:Velociraptor222.jpg. The image should be scaled down to web-resolution for use. The second problem is that it says it is from a movie poster or title card. For that you need to show the source from where you got it. As far as I can remember, I hadn't seen any such poster, and even if it existed, it is cropped (contrary to FU rationale provided). I feel that it is most likely a cropped screenshot of the movie. Please confirm. Also, the article is missing the FU rationale text; i.e.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extensive Google Images and eBay search failed to turn up any trace of a poster with this image. However, the image can be seen on a random dinosaur website here. Believing it to be a screenshot, I scanned through my DVD copy of the film but also failed to find such an image during the course of either of the first two movies (the third is ruled out due to the absence of head feathers in the image, which were present on the raptors from the third film). However, I did locate the image while looking through the special features of the disc. I believe it to be a publicity photo, although I cannot find it listed as such anywhere online. Is a single publicity photo considered fair use? Sheep81 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single publicity photo qualifies as fair use and is infact a good candidate as it can be said for sure that it does not reduce the value of copyright. However, there are other issues. I am assuming that you saw the image from an authentic DVD, and not a pirated one. The issue is that in such a case the image would be a landscape one and not a portrait one like this. So it is most likely a cropped version, IMO. As far as I know, cropping (a derivative work) of fair-use images is not allowed. If you want to use it, use the actual screenshot and attribute it as such. And don't forget to make it web-resolution. You may also wish to contact the uploader for source as he's still a bit active nowadays. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original picture was deleted by the nominator. I went ahead and took a screenshot from my copy of the movie (which, by the way, is most definitely authentic) and placed it on the page. Hope that helps. Sheep81 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we have fixed all of your requests.... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Minor object~~. Good article overall, but there's at least one {{citation needed}} tag still there at the moment; obviously this needs to be resolved. Also, is a separate heading for "History of classification" necessary? There are no other sub-sections of "Taxonomy"; why not just have a single long section there. Kirill Lokshin 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second title gone... Will find citation in my books somewhere... Or I could just delete the sentence needing citation.... Spawn Man 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added by User:Firsfron. Sheep81 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good; support now. Kirill Lokshin 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Definitely among the strongest zoological articles I've ever read. Soo 01:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. This article has come a long way since its nomination. For the record, I am a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, but I would not support this article for a FA unless I felt it really was ready. I am unsure about the Jurassic Park photo, but I'm certain a substitute can be easily located, if it turns out to be unusuable. I feel most of the remaining concerns have already been addressed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good. Most dinosaur articles aren't as detailed as this one. igordebraga ≠ 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Given the particular way that the Jurassic Park image is used, I think that the use of a fair use screenshot is quite justified. It probably ought to be made smaller - the only justification of fair use images is that they are used in an article (which is why a justification has to be given for that particular use - there is no point having an image that displays more detail than is shown in the article. (The image page shouldn't be a "use in itself" - if you make it something worth clicking on as you can see a far more detailed version, then there's an indication the use of the image in Wikipedia has crept beyond the article it is fair use in.) Image:Time-magazine-cover-henry-fairfield-osborn.jpg is a different matter. The use of Time magazine covers has been a bane of Wikipedia (yes, I'm going to gratuitously link to the infamous RFC). If you read the image copyright tag it refers to the use of the image "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" which is clearly not the case here. Now it's arguable that a case for fair use could be made, and some Wikipedians would be satisfied with it and others wouldn't. It would help the argument's cause if the image was closer to a thumbnail, for instance, than the size it is at the moment: again, it is rather large for an image that we declare is "fairly used in particular articles" - the level of detail substantially exceeds what is visible in those articles. (Having big, detailed, freely licensed pictures to click on the image pages for viewing in detail is great because we are meant to be a "free", reproducible encyclopedia with high quality, free content. The fair use image pages have a different purpose: they should pretty much just contain the image as it appears in the articles it is used in, an "unfortunately this isn't free content" notice and an explanation of why it's in line with Wikipedia's copyrights policy to include it in the articles it's used in). I'm not even convinced that the use of the Time magazine image really adds that much to the article, especially bearing in mind that this is meant to be a "free" project. TheGrappler 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm guessing that you want me to delete the time picture? You never really said what you actually wanted me to do, so forgive me if this is wrong. I'll delete the picture & hope you can support.... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to be too prescriptive - if I wanted a particular change done, I'd do it myself. I'd accept a range of solutions, and this is certainly one of them. The Jurassic Park picture is much better a case of fair use, though do you think you could rehash its fair use rationale a little? As far as I can see, the heart of the fair use claim is that the article engages in critical commentary about the portrayal and appearance of velociraptors in the movie. If it did not, and the picture was simply included as eye candy, I think the fair use claim would be far worse. The fact that the fair use claim actually is this good should surely be reflected in the rationale. Also, would you put in a fair use comment into the text, perhaps in a similar way as, for instance, Starship Troopers#Background: The writing of Starship Troopers does? TheGrappler 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now altered the fair use rationale to indicate why use of this picture in the article is legitimate. Please advise if this is still unsatisfactory. Thanks! Sheep81 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suport. I'm usually a stickler for proper use of fair use, and this seems like a reasonable call to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]