Talk:Gryposaurus

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 18, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: On balance this is well written. Occasionally the language is perhaps overly dense, almost as if it was copied from an academic journal by someone who didn't know exactly how to rephrase for a general audience.

2. Factually accurate?: This article is exceptionally well-sourced. Bravo!

3. Broad in coverage?: An area for improvement is certainly the paleobiology section, if more is known. I'm aware that sometimes many aspects of prehistoric creatures are simply unknown or unstudied. There's relatively little in this article about what the life of a gryposaurus would have been like. This article would probably not reach FA status without a bigger paleobiology section.

4. Neutral point of view?: I sense no bias

5. Article stability? I sense no instability

6. Images?: More images would be great if they can be found, but a lack of images (or in this case, one image) is not a reason to deny good article status.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — JayHenry 03:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gryposaurus/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 all 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) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gryposaurus. 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/20130828042919/http://www.geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/gseprocl.htm to http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/gseprocl.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)