# Talk:Azilestes

This review is transcluded from Talk:Azilestes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 The specimen was found by surface prospecting northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil. - might wanna reword that. Grammatically correct but had to read it a couple of times to confirm....
It preserves only part of the mandibular corpus - is "mandibular corpus" same as "body of mandible"?
Can the Palaeoecology section be expanded at all? e.g. is it temperate/tropical/riparian/montane/forest/desert......
Sorry for taking so long to reply! I'll have to address these later, as I haven't got much time. All I can say right now is that there is no information on the palaeoenvironment of the Grès de Labarre. Borophagus (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
No dramas - happy to leave these open for an extended period. article is in good shape and on track - am reduced to quibbles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Glad it's all good. Looking up the definition of the mandibular corpus, it looks like it's basically just the body of the mandible. I might be wrong, but the medical dictionary lists it as: "the heavy, U-shaped, horizontal portion of the mandible extending posteriorly to the angle where it is continuous with the ramus; it supports the lower teeth." Also, now I have time to address the other point. Would this be better? "The specimen was found in the northeastern outcrops of the Grès de Labarre levels, northeast of the Mas-d’Azil, by surface prospecting in the area."
ETA: Would it be possible to address any of those quibbles? Borophagus (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Are fossil articles always this technical? WP:TECHNICAL. —Eewilson (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
While not quite as technical (I admit to getting a little carried away in places), the article for Monolophosaurus is an example of a technical palaeontology article. Borophagus (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
ETA: Another example is Dromaeosauroides. Borophagus (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry got sidetracked. Will check today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:   (bar minor rewording which is not a deal-breaker) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)