Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs

The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 4, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that while reviewers generally praised The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs, one reviewer complained that the author was "so nice about his colleagues that it makes you long for a juicy academic vendetta"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that while reviewers generally praised The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs, one reviewer complained that the author was "so nice about his colleagues that it makes you long for a juicy academic vendetta"?

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/review-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-dinosaurs-by-steve-brusatte-ripping-yarns-from-the-age-of-dino-might-768wf8zsv

Reviewed: Fewer than 5 past noms, no QPQ required
Comment: I don't have a direct source for generally positive reviews, but I haven't been able to find a single review that didn't primarily praise the book. If this is an issue I can reword the hook to exclude that.

Created by Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Rusalkii: Article is long enough, well sourced, and is free from copyvio (apart from direct quotes from reviews, obviously). Article is new enough: published into mainspace the same day DYK was submitted. The hook is interesting, but I couldn't access the hook source directly due to a paywall. It doesn't affect the DYK nom but there are a lot of sources like that in the article; I would recommend adding accessible archived URLs for the sources like that if you get a chance. One pedantic thing before approval: since the original quote says that he "is" so nice, the word "was" in the hook should be moved outside of the quotation marks since it's not a direct quote. Other than that there's nothing preventing this from approval on good faith. Kimikel (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote fixed. I'll attempt to find an un-paywalled source later. Rusalkii (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marking this as approved per Kimikel's review, since the tick is needed for the bot to process the approval. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have some notes and sources that I didn't end up working into the article at User:Rusalkii/The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs Rusalkii (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks you for creating a page on this book; for future new pages, remember to link the article from elsewhere and to add categories so that the article you've created can be more easily found by others.

Klbrain (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked most of the sources and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Non-fiction synopsis needs to be sourced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to place this on hold until the nominator addresses the points I have raised thus far. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Failed due to inactivity. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Holland at The Times and other reviewers especially singled out his ability to describe paleontological landscapes. Is a bit confusing. Could you expand on this and reword a bit? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this article relies too much on quotes. A lot of what you are quoting could be summarized or rephrased without the use of quotes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs was Brusatte's first book for a popular adult audience Could you clarify what this means? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Just wanted to ping you to make sure that you're aware I've started the review here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review, half a year later

Hi @IntentionallyDense, sorry for the complete lack of response there, you caught me in a partial wikibreak and then it felt kind of weird to come back to this after it'd been failed, which was not my best moment. I do want to improve the article, so I've tried to address your comments, but I've got a few questions, if you'd be willing to put up with them this late:

I've rephrased some of the quotes as normal prose, but the review section remains pretty heavily reliant on quotes. I think this is pretty common and in many cases the exact wording matters, and I don't want to venture in CLOP territory. Does this address the issue or do you think it still needs work?
"Non-fiction synopsis needs to be sourced" -> do you mean sourced to the work itself, or something else? I've added citations to the book, and skimmed a couple fiction FAs, some of which rely heavily on the book itself for the synopsis.

If you'd be willing to re-review this for GA I'd appreciate that a lot, but if not I'll send it back to the queue. Rusalkii (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to see that you're back! I'm not sure if I can fully commit to a GA review in the next few days, as weekends tend to be very busy for me, but if you can wait a couple days I may be able to give it a full review.

Regarding the quotes, this honestly isn't my strong suite so I'll have to come back to this but my concern comes from when there is a shorter article that relies a lot on quotes. When it an article is shorter, the percentage of prose vs quotes can easily spill over into a place that borders onto copyright violations.

I do believe citations to the book itself are sufficient for nonfiction summaries but I will have to look into the specific guidelines here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, definitely not on the scale of days. Rusalkii (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense:, I've submitted this through the normal GAN review process, feel free to take the review whenever you have the time or leave it to others as you prefer. Rusalkii (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll give it some time to see if others pick up the review and see if I have time after the weekend. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Unsuccessful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 03:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this now. I have little time available and will do this in two batches. There is one major issue, which is prose – criterion 1 is not currently met (a few examples, but there are more issues). Comments:

The book chronicles the evolution of dinosaurs, their rise as the dominant clade, and ends with an account of the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs – here, "their rise as the dominant clade" has no connection to the first sentence part. Instead, you could write something that flows, such as "The book chronicles the evolution of dinosaurs, from their rise to dominance to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs".
and birds' descent from dinosaurs – better "and the descent of birds from dinosaurs"
and an epilogue of sorts – not sure what that means. If it is not an epilogue, just don't call it that.
Several reviewers criticized Brusatte's focus on T. rex and other "celebrity"[10] clades, with one reviewer complaining that they "got somewhat out-T. rexed" – I think this needs context as I really can't follow. What got "out-T. rexed"? The other "celebrity clades"? What is "they" referring to? But you just said they were the focus?
Foreign language versions are not covered. I know there is a German translation, at leadt.
Some international reception (including those for foreign language versions) would be nice to have but is optional for this GA.
the author's command of modern research – the word "command" here seems to be a quite creative word choice. Apparently, you took that over from the source. Even though its only a single word, that might fall under close paraphrasing, since you copy the creative part of the original work. I suggest rephrasing.
but he had written a number of articles – what do you mean with "articles"; popular science articles or his peer-reviewed papers?
hadn't – had not
The Dinosaur Heresies – wikilink
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs where possible.
In the infobox, Todd Marshall is listed as illustrator, but did he illustrate anything apart from the front cover?
Hope the above helps, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for the article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, this caught me on a semi-wikibreak again. Hope to get to it this weekend. Rusalkii (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The rest seems ok, and I don't see issues with the sources. There might be a few additional prose-related comments to follow up, but apart from that, the review should be complete from my part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii:, any progress? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack@Rusalkii where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Per above, I have to archive now due to inactivity. Feel free to drop me a note should you re-nominate this, and I might be able to pick-up the review again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.