Talk:Species of Allosaurus

message: :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.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div> Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: The name Allosaurus ferox Marsh, 1896 is a lapsus calami for Allosaurus fragilis by Marsh (1896) (Hay 1908), particularly since Hay (1908) points out that "Labrosaurus fragilis Marsh 1896" is a lapsus calami for Labrosaurus ferox Marsh, 1884 (in other words, it's impossible that Marsh named two Allosaurus specimens with the epithet ferox).
Labrosaurus huene is a typographical mistake by Madsen and Welles (2000) with regards to the mention of the name Labrosaurus by Huene (1956, 1958)(see http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Neotheropoda.htm#Labrosaurushuene for explanation).
Hay, O., 1908, On certain genera of carnivorous dinosaurs, with special reference to Ceratosaurus nasicornis (Marsh): Proceedings of the United States National Museum, v. 35, p. 351-366, 4 figs. 83.206.236.228 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So after the ADF, I guess the next step is to merge this into Allosaurus. Any takers? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already made clear, I fully support the idea. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some discussion at the ADF about some of the into being inaccurate or misinterpreted. Which would that be, so we can exclude it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just look at the "potentially valid species" section. It says that there might be eight valid species, a far higher number than you ever see thrown around nowadays. The following section is a horrible mess - each species gets a single very short paragraph, several which get sidetracked, and some of which tell information out of chronological order for no apparent reason. None of them contain sufficient information for a general reader to get any sufficient picture about a single species; it's probably more likely to confuse them thoroughly. Allosaurus lucasi doesn't get any mention at all outside the list of species. The questioning of these species - every single one of them has been questioned somewhere in some capacity - is barely scratched. How on earth this passed GA is beyond me. The other sections are even more brief, and the whole article is based on fairly old literature, almost uniformly from 2010 or earlier. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear then that the only problem is the "Potentially valid species", and that we could already begin transferring non-duplicate info from the other sections, and leave that section for last? As for how this passed GAN, 2007 was a simpler time, and much of the info here seems to have been added since. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The other sections are still pretty sparse in information, but there's less to cover for most them and it's a less essential topic to get right, so they're a lot more forgivable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the entire "Query about type specimen" section is already in the Allosaurus article (last paragraph under "Species and taxonomy"). The "Biological variation" section could probably be copied wholesale to Allosaurus, but I'm not sure what section, perhaps under description? The Allosaurus article could probably also benefit from a "formerly assigned species" section instead of the current lumping of synonyms and reassigned fossils under "Species and taxonomy". We could maybe have one subsection for currently assigned species, one for synonyms, and one for formerly assigned species. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Any ideas on how to deal with that last section, ? FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid species 

message: The article has been redirected and has therefor lost its GA status. AIRcorn (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect