# Talk:Prosaurolophus

I decided that there wasn't much more that could be done with this one, short of delving deeply into anatomical details and apomorphies and such.  Let it stand or fall! J. Spencer (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to expand the lead, and add some external links, as I believe these may be the only things keeping the article from GA. Wikipedia should be a place to begin one's research; right now, aside from Thescelosaurus!, there's not much for a reader to do once s/he reaches the end of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just had a go: take a look when you get a chance. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me; I appreciate the help! J. Spencer (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad it was actually helpful! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prosaurolophus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nice article. Some touching up of the prose is needed, plus the image desciption pages were left in a poor state.
Prose:

"3D reconstruction" better word pls
Upper Cretaceous, Late Cretaceous - why use two words, is there a difference?
"He described the specimen in 1916 as the new genus Prosaurolophus in comparison to the genus Saurolophus which he had described in 1912." in comparison to is unclear, do you simply mean he has discovered both or did he base the new name on some comparison?
"The skull was damaged in the muzzle" - you mean "The skull had damaged muzzle" or "The skull's muzzle was inadvertedly damaged"?
"with a more terrestrial influence" this means it is further inland, or?
"bipedal/quadrupedal herbivore" the slash could use some explanation, at what occasions did they walk on all four?
"a cheek-like organ" - rewrite as "something similar to a cheek"? the word organ seems strange
"nasal diverticula may also have been present, inflatable soft-tissue sacs" - the comma does not  make it clear if you are talking about one or two things
Verifiability:

Image:Prosaurolophus Maximus.jpg: "based on a variety of skeletal reference." could you be more specific?
Broadness: Fine
Neutrality: Fine
Stability: Fine
I'm putting it on hold. Narayanese (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sidecomment: Given [1], that pic in the description section is most likely a Prosaurolophus maximus, isn't it? Narayanese (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the alternatives to the words "3D reconstruction"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd Prefer if the skeleton image would switch with my image for the Taxbox. I tried a test but couldn't get the layout to work properly. If a full body shot is available that would be more appropriate. As for ‘’3D’’, the image has been photoshopped so much is not really 3d anymore. (3d can be used to refer to physical scuptures as well) Mybe it should just be droped. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments!
On an better word for 3D: I expanded it to "Three-dimensional", as a first step.
There is a subtle difference between Upper Cretaceous and Late Cretaceous. The general rule is Upper or Lower refers to a rock unit's position in the strat column, whereas Early or Late is used when discussing age.  Thus, Prosaurolophus is from the Late Cretaceous, and was found in Upper Cretaceous rocks.
1916 and 1912 dinosaurs: rewrote as two sentences.
Damaged skull: I like the way it reads now, after you changed it.
"Terrestrial influence": I read it again, and it was a confusing clause, so I struck it.  Also, I put it what the Two Medicine Formation was being compared to.
Bipedal/quadrupedal: It's under some debate now.  I think it's accepted that they when they were standing around, feeding, or otherwise not under any great need for speed, they would move on all fours.  I'll have to check refs to see how best to state it.
Cheek: I replaced "organ" with "structure".
Nasal diverticula: split into two sentences.
Image description: looks like Steve got to it.
J. Spencer (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've switched the images, per Steveoc's comment. I kept Steveoc's caption the same, as it still looks three-dimensional. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish you luck in finding something more about bipedalism in this dino. But it meets the GA criteria already, so I'm passing it. I see you have addressed all the other points (I forgot to remove the muzzle bit from the list after having a go at it myself). Narayanese (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! Bipedalism/quadrupedalism may take a bit of time, as I am away from the greater portion of my books and papers. J. Spencer (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Upon further review, the Dinosauria II hadrosaurid chapter covers both feeding and locomotion suitably. J. Spencer (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)