Talk:Alioramus

	Alioramus 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed November 22, 2008 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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.

Only thing I can think of at first glance is highlighting more the nature of remains in the last section, and maybe something on environment in the formation. Like o ne of those detective stories where all you have is pieces. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some ideas:

• A scale diagram;
• Add an alternate cladogram, or adjust the one I just added (add a caption and remove the Currie title on the top);
• As Cas said, discuss what the environment was in Mongolia at the time Alioramus lived;
• Pop culture section (obviously optional, but you know you're very good at writing those);
• Find a few really good external links. Doesn't Palaeos have something on this genus?
• You probably don't want to write Alioramus articles in Dutch, Portuguese, and Swahili just to add a few more bytes to this article's length, but I did that for Massospondylus. ;)
• Expand the lead. There is no way the seven sentences in the lead sum up the whole article;
• Find or create a diagram of a notable feature of Alioramus: the many teeth, a single, sharp, serrated tooth; a claw; the skull.
• Under classification, some FAs, like Stegosaurus, have an "origin" section. Discuss Alioramus' origins;

Hope these suggestions help. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more ideas I had. Some may be pie-in-the-sky type ideas, but maybe some of them will spark your interest. #1. See if you can't ask someone involved on the the Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences to snap a photo of the skull.

1. 2. Do you have any of these books/papers? They all apparently discuss Alioramus to some extent. It's also classified in Paul's PDW.

• Gauthier, J.A. (1986). "Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds". The Origin of Birds and the Evolution of Flight K. Padian (ed.), Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 8:1-55
• Barsbold, R. (1983). "Carnivorous dinosaurs from the Cretaceous of Mongolia". Transactions of the Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition 19:1-117
• Kurzanov, S.M. (1989). "Concerning the origin and evolution of the dinosaur infraorder Carnosauria". Paleontologicheskiy Zhurnal 1989(4):3-14
• Weishampel, D.B, Grigorescu, D, and Norman, D.B. (1991). "The dinosaurs of Transylvania". National Geographic Research and Exploration 7(2):196-215
• Molnar, R.E. (1991). "The cranial morphology of Tyrannosaurus rex". Palaeontographica Abteilung A 217(4-6):137-176
• Currie, P.J. and Zhao, X.J. (1993). "A new carnosaur (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Jurassic of Xinjiang, People's Republic of China". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30(10-11):2037-2081
• Rauhut, O.W.M. (2003). "The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs". Special Papers in Palaeontology 69:1-213
• Holtz, T.R. (1997). "Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Tyrannosauridae (Theropoda: Coelurosauria)". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(3, suppl.):53A
• Holtz, T.R. (2001). "The phylogeny and taxonomy of the Tyrannosauridae" in D. H. Tanke & K. Carpenter (eds.), Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. Indiana University Press, Bloomington 64-83
• Currie, P.J. (2003). "Allometric growth in tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of North America and Asia". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 40:651-665

Obviously, the older papers are outdated, but they could be used for a History section, if you want one. The newer ones may prove useful. If you have no access to these newer ones, consider adding them to a Further reading section as a courtesy to readers who may want to read more about the genus. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added scale diagram and skull diagram, courtesy of Steve. Added cladograms. Added brief discussion of Nemegtskaya environment to Paleoecology. This added up to about 4,000 bytes, increasing the size of the article by almost 40%! Sheep81 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment: The Holtz cladogram is so strange. How can something be equally likely to be less derived than the Tyrannosaurinae, or more derived than basal Tyrannosaurinae? I realize that the skull is the best material and even it is not complete, but what a strange result. Still, you have to go by what the source states... You aren't being eaten by tigers over there, are you? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked closely at the matrix but if I would have to guess it would be because the skull belongs to a juvenile. Juvenile tyrants looked a lot more like basal tyrannosauroids. Alioramus still has derived characters of tyrannosaurines though. I wonder what an adult Alioramus skull would have looked like...

Also, no tiger maulings here, that was in San Francisco. It'd be a long hike for that tiger to get down here, not helped any by its deadness. Sheep81 (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Another amazing article! Two small concerns:

1. The third external link is broken.
2. The lead needs a slight tweaking per WP:LEAD. It should include one more sentence worked in on the "Discovery and naming" and possibly the "Paleoecology" sections for it to be considered complete (though maybe there's enough on the latter — I'll leave it up to your discretion).

After you address these possibly insurmountable concerns, I'll be glad to pass this as a Good Article. Seven day hold in effect, despite the fact that it took you less than seven minutes to address the concerns on the last article. Cheers, CP 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing your concerns. I think Firs and I tag teamed them pretty well, what do you think? Sheep81 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. And I think you set a new record on the time trials too. I'm very happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing it! Sheep81 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IS is probably not a species which discussion is not, should we kept qianzhousaurus page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no grounds to merge; when there's disagreement, we must keep a side of neutrality and keep the articles separate. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]