Talk:Heterodontosaurus

Heterodontosaurus is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by FunkMonk (talk) & Jens Lallensack (talk) at 23:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Dinosaurs Stub‑class

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Extinction Unassessed

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

It will be?

I live in Patagonia. I have information on a fosil with different teeth (eyeteeth of carnivore and molares of hervívoro). Until today I could not determine to that species corresponds. I need that a professional (Paleontólogo) writes me to verify if is a Heterodontosaurus. Please Urgent. Victor Feildman mentario@hotmail.com

Feathers?

Shouldn't Heterodontosaurus have feathers, after all Tianyulong does. DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC). It's probable, but not as solidly bracketed as it is for, say, Deinonychus. We're dealing with a sample size of at most two ornithischains with feathers that may or may not be homologous. Still... it would be a fairly safe bet. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Psittacosaurus also has feather-like quills suggesting that it could of have been present in all (or most) heterodontiformes. Besides, the feathers in raptors are only proven to be in three species (Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus and Velociraptor). Yet we put them in all species. Also we only have one proven species of therizinosaur with feahers (Beipiaosaurus) yet the group gets one. DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.6.247 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we know that the group ancestral to "raptors" also had feathers, since every group down the tree from them up until carnosaurs have them, and they're all clearly the same structures. With heterodontosaurs, there's still a slight possibility that the feathers of Tianyulong and Psittacosaurus are not the same structure. It's a slim possibility but it's there. Also, we have evidence from species that are within the same phylogenetic bracket that lack feathers, like hadrosaurs. I'm not saying the current picture is accurate, or even likely, just that it can't be proven inaccurate (unlike, say, a featherless Graciliraptor). MMartyniuk (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quill-less image had other problems, for example a short tail and quadrupedal posture, so I have replaced it with one that fixes those issues and adds quills. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heterodontosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the criteria needed to become a "good article"; it's well written, factually accurate, and cites a large number of reliable sources. Based on the guidelines set by Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles), this page is a good article. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no comments at all? Any nitpicking is appreciated, since we'll take this to FAC afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GAREV, only registered editors are allowed to open and conduct GA reviews. Unfortunately, that means that this review cannot proceed, and is being closed, with the nomination returned to the GA reviewing pool. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1, I would like to suggest that you register and get an account, but also that you gain a few months of editing experience before you attempt your next review with that account. (It is the rare article indeed that has no typos or grammatical issues, and I see no sign that it was checked for close paraphrasing, words to watch, image licensing, or that the article accurately represented its source material.) Not that I have any reason to doubt the authors, but that the reviewer needs to check all of the good article criteria. Sorry, FunkMonk; this will have to wait for a qualified reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be sorry about, I'd prefer a review with suggestions over a rubber-stamp pass. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]