Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration

Collaborations
Today
Today's articles for improvement
Science & technology
Birds Dinosaurs
Miscellaneous
Inactive collaborations

The Dinosaur collaboration is a coordinated effort by WikiProject Dinosaurs to improve Wikipedia's dinosaur-related content. However, being a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs is not a prerequisite for participation in this collaboration. All Wikipedians, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject, are welcome to contribute. Aside from the main benefit of creating better dinosaur articles on Wikipedia, this initiative will hopefully a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. The ultimate goal of the Dinosaur Collaboration is to get at least one dinosaur or dinosaur-related article featured every month.

It was originally activated in June 2006 and coordinated by Spawn Man (talk · contribs) and collaborations work chosen every fortnight until October 2006. Six articles out of the eleven worked on through this period, ultimately achieved Featured Status, and another two achieved Good Article status. There was a short hiatus before reactivation in January 2007 with Casliber (talk · contribs) coordinating, with collaborations chosen monthly until winding down in May 2008. A further five out of thirteen, achieved Featured Status. Voting was reactivated in December 2010 for the selection of a collaboration, in January 2011. The variable pace of improvement, plus greater time required to improve articles to a Good or Featured state, indicates that selecting collaborations monthly, will result in us cycling through them with only a minority reaching GA. Hence as of February 2011, a new collaboration will be automatically chosen once the current one achieves Good Status (a thoroughly worked over Good Article with a strict reviewer is often close to Featured Status, so editors can either keep working to shove the first article across the line or start on the second one and take a breather). This only lasted one collaboration (Apatosaurus, which did reach FA status), before becoming inactive. It was revived again in March 2018.

Nomination procedure

A list of past collaborations can be viewed here.

Any user may nominate an article to be collaborated upon. Nominees should:

• Be about any dinosaur or directly dinosaur-related topic.
• Need a significant amount of work in terms of content, organization, prose, etc.
• Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection.

If you would like to nominate an article, please add it at the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think it should be chosen.

For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating an article.

===[[ARTICLE NAME]]===
''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]];''

Support:

1. (sign with four tildes)

Comments:

• (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----

For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support an article.

#~~~

Nominations...

Please list nominees below using the code laid out in the above section. Newer nominees should be placed on the bottom of the list. Feel free to vote for as many nominees as you wish, but only once per nomination. Please only vote to indicate support, do not vote in the negative. If you like, add a comment in the comment's section under nomination, or on the collaboration talk page. Articles will remain on the list for three "bites" of the collaboration cherry, after which time they will be archived. For the current collaboration, see the template at the top of the page.

The next Dinosaur collaboration will be chosen on March 1st when the current nomination achieves Good Article status (rationale: activity not high enough to warrant us cycling through successful collaboration nominations without finishing what we start)

---

Origin of Birds (1 vote)

Nominated 13 January, 2011;

Support:

1. Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think this is a pretty important article which obviously has a lot of information on it and is also very important. It has a lot of info already on it from previous efforts at fixing it up and I think all of this combines into a good mixture which shouldn't be too hard to bring up to at least a GA standard, if not to an FA.

Torvosaurus (4 votes)

Nominated November 4th, 2013;

Support:

1. Raptormimus456 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2. PW102281 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
3. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• Torvosaurus as a genus is a very interesting animal, and I'd love to see it go to FA status one day. It's an article about a lesser known species (not one of the "Big 7" (those being T.rex, Velociraptor, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Apatosaurus and Spinosaurus), it's already pretty nice and overall it's a nice-looking article. Now if only it could get FA...Raptormimus456 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'd love to see all of Megalosauroidea achieve at least GA status, and Torvosaurus is a good start for getting Megalosauridae itself into good shape, being a genus very well known from skeletal material, and providing an exemplary introduction to megalosaurids and their typical body plan. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Ceratosaurus and Allosaurus are both FAs now so it'd be nice to complete the Morrison trinity. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• I suspect Torvosaurus might get a slight make over or something, or at least more known parts, since a newly discovered pretty complete specimen (which was commercially available for a while I think) has just been placed in a museum. So I would personally find it a bit shaky until that is published. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Might not be the most urgent one in terms of importance, but defenitely very popular. On the other hand, it is not that huge a project, and could be done more quickly than the articles we collaborated on recently. And seeing that there is some interest in working on this, why not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Triceratops (1 vote)

Nominated April 2nd, 2019;

Support:

1. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• Just to have more alternatives to vote on, and to finally have an old FA to enter the competition, as was suggested in the WikiProject discussions. Triceratops is an 2007 FA of obvious importance, which needs a good deel of rework to get it up to the current standards. The goal would be to get it through peer review and, ideally, have it on the main page for a second time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• One of the most important dinosaur articles we have, I definitely support the idea. Plus all of those old invalid species look like a fun challenge to sort through! Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles for promotion and maintenance

If you think an article is good enough to be a Featured Article Candidate, feel free to nominate it. However, it is recommended that you have the article peer reviewed first. Peer reviewed articles are generally more polished and are often more likely to receive votes of support on the FAC page. If you would like to discuss a particular article before sending it to be reviewed, bring it up on the talk page of the article in question, of this page, or the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page. If you do send an article for peer review or to the FAC page, please let us know by adding it to the appropriate list below so that we can support it!

In terms of criteria consider proximity to FAC candicacy in terms of work required + personal preference + global importance WRT other dinos or FA list and wikipedia in general, in whatever ratios you wish...

Today's featured articles

• 19 Apr 2019 – Irritator (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Miscellany for deletion

• 22 Mar 2019 – Portal:Troodontidae (talk · edit · hist) was MfDed by Legacypac (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Mar 2019 – Portal:Oviraptorosauria (talk · edit · hist) was MfDed by Legacypac (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Mar 2019 – Portal:Thyreophora (talk · edit · hist) MfDed by Legacypac (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Featured article reviews

• 05 Oct 2018 – Tyrannosaurus (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Mimihitam (t · c); see discussion

Good article reassessments

• 15 Mar 2019 – Kirtlandian (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Tisquesusa (t · c); see discussion

Potential future nominations

Below is a list of articles about genera that have enough coverage in the literature to warrant possible nomination:

• Scipionyx - Recently got its monograph published, much more will probably not be known about it until other specimens are found.
• Giraffatitan
• Eoraptor - Just got a monograph, so could be expanded a lot.
• Coelophysis - Well known, lots of information, main problem would be whether Megapnosaurus is sunk within it, but that'll only mean expansion, not cutting.
• Protoceratops - Much seems to be known about it, so surprising that it is so short.
• Maiasaura - Same as above.
• Camarasaurus - Very important sauropod, but still needs work
• Microraptor - might also be close, and very important
• Goyocephale - not overly well known, but probably the most stable pachycephalosaur, with the validity of many genera and included species of most other pachycephalosaurs controversial.
• Australovenator - plenty of free media and text to use.
• Brontosaurus - Very important sauropod, major historical impact, still needs more work
• Theropoda - Most popular of the 7 major groups
• Sauropoda - Second most popular of the 7 major groups, might be nice to have some big group articles, since Ceratopsia failed GAR
• Argentinosaurus - Very popular page, one of the largest dinosaurs
• Utahraptor - Also very popular
• Kentrosaurus - Appears to be the second most well known stegosaur
• Sinosauropteryx - Perhaps one of our most important articles, as it was the first non-avian dinosaur with evidence of feathers.

Old FAs for improvement

• Styracosaurus - Old FA that could be improved to meet current standards.
• Tyrannosaurus - Description section could be improved to meet current standards.
• Triceratops - Description section could be improved to meet current standards.