# Talk:Kritosaurus

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Overall comment: I'm really pleased with the article's coverage and its references. Some redlinks are found in Discovery and history section, but they're kept in a low amount. The only thing that I believe needs to be improved on is to find a image for the infobox in the introduction paragraph. This article looks decently overall, and I'll give it a pass. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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


### GA Sweeps: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate the GA sweep; as soon as a new description of Kritosaurus comes out, I'm pretty sure J. Spencer will be on it. In fact, he'll probably know stuff months in advance. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A paper on the skeletal anatomy of Kritosaurus is forthcoming (Prieto-Marquez, submitted). Hopefully, this paper will address the question of whether or not Anasazisaurus and Naashoibitosaurus are the same taxon as Kritosaurus. Moreover, the Sabinas saurolophine regarded as a potential new species of Kritosaurus by Kirkland et. al. (2006) has been shown to represent a distinct taxon more closely related to Saurolophus than to Kritosaurus (Prieto-Marquez and Serrano Branas, in press).
Prieto-Márquez, A., submitted. Skeletal morphology and phylogentic affinities of Kritosaurus navajovius, a hadrosaurid dinosaur from the late Campanian (Cretaceous) of the North American Southwest. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.
Prieto-Márquez, A., and Serrano Brañas, C. I. In press. Latirhinus uitstlani, a ‘broad-nosed’ saurolophine hadrosaurid (Dinosauria, Ornithopoda) from the late Campanian (Cretaceous) of northern Mexico. Historical Biology. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I hate to bring this up, but the "sabinosaur" (PASAC-1) was not referred to Kritosaurus by Prieto-Marquez (2013). Instead, he  found that "the morphological differences existing between PASAC-1 and Kritosaurus navajovius outnumber the similarities... The Sabinas hadrosaurid is not referable to Kritosaurus". Prieto-Marquez considered the sabinosaur an indeterminate saurolophinae. The specimen IGM 6685, a partial cranium, is instead the specimen that extends the range of Kritosaurus navajovius into Mexico. J. Spencer (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad then, was a nice image. I'll revert back. So the specimen will never receive a name? FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That I couldn't say. There is already a name floating around, and all it takes is one more analysis to bring it into the light. The usage of "indeterminate" is kind of soft, because it's still part of the cladogram in the paper. J. Spencer (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kritosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405103054/http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20110049_acc.pdf to http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20110049_acc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)