# Talk:Sauropelta

If we're working up to GA etc...

Scientifically, Sauropelta is one of the best-known nodosaurids...
"Scientifically" possibly redundant here? Although as I write this I am reminded of pop culture. In which case maybe substitute "understood" for known.....cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise looks really good.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll change it. Sheep81 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Great work here Sheep! Don't worry about leaning too heavily on Carpenter--as you said, he has done most of the work, and it seems like he's summarized/re-evaluated much of the earlier work in his papers as well. Dinoguy2 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I won't worry then. Sheep81 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you wokring up to nominate this for FA? would easily pass GA as is I reckon and not too far off FA...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably GA material: it's only slightly shorter than our shortest FA, Albertosaurus, so it seems comprehensive. I can't find any serious issues that would bar it from GA status. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Picked this one up about ten minutes ago (from timestamp on my signature). I'll place questions, comments, painful wails of grief here. Do give me a day or two. Thanks! — Gosgood 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! We look forward to your suggestions. Sheep81 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


### First pass remarks
These remarks are based on version 135497624, 02:41, 3 June 2007, as edited by Sheep81 Key: : you are past the gate. : I think you've got some work to get to FA, but it suffices for the overall "decent, satisfactory" criteria of GA. : You've got a little work to do for GA. 


### Second pass remarks
Unless this article's custodians, frequent contributors, project managers and the like ask me to do otherwise, I'll do the second pass on this version, 137106108, 16:22, 9 June 2007 as edited by Sheep81, and I do that over the next hour or three. I'll amend the table below with additional remarks and final review status. Take care. — Gosgood 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've concluded my review. I believe this constitutes a good article. See particular remarks below. Take care — Gosgood 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Deinonychus preyed on/fed on Sauropelta? This is stated as a fact in the article, and if there's no direct or association evidence it should probably be changed to something like "fed on Tenontosaurus and may have fed on Sauropelta as well." Dinoguy2 10:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "fed on some of these herbivores". Nice and vague. :) Sheep81 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've come across this article, still a bit in  the start state, to which Anky-man contributes. Seems some of the generic, backstory prose you have in Environment could migrate there, where it could support a number of articles, and then here the dicussion can become pretty focussed on Sauropelta, No? Keep up the good work! Check in early next week. Gosgood 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think I've removed a lot of the backstory and just left in the details that directly relate to Sauropelta: the age, the environment of the time, how the Cloverly times (and Sauropelta) ended, and the other fauna of the time, which would have interacted with Sauropelta. I left in the information at the end about faunal transition because I think it puts Sauropelta and the rest of the fauna in context. Plus it is interesting, I think. I'll see about transferring some of the deleted prose to Cloverly Formation. Anyway there may be a few more changes on the way but so far I think we are making good progress. Thanks a lot for your work on this! Sheep81 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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


### GA Sweeps: Kept
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 would be beneficial to update the access dates for 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) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the skull discussed in several SVP abstracts by Parsons & Parsons as possibly Sauropelta was later described as Tatankacephalus. The general location (Middle Dome region of Wheatland Co, MT), stratigraphy (Cloverly VII), and material sync up. J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)