 | Kota Formation was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 21, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kota Formation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paleobiota help
editCode
editThis section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.
Premade rowspans:
| rowspan="2" |
| rowspan="3" |
| rowspan="4" |
| rowspan="5" |
| rowspan="6" |
| rowspan="7" |
Replacement headings for "Presence" column
! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material
Replacement headings for "Taxa" column
Cell background colors
editThe background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.
Color key
|
Notes Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; |
Red for reclassified and preoccupied
|style="background:#fbdddb;" |
Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:
|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |
Dark grey for discredited taxa:
|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |
Peach for Ichnotaxa:
|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |
Light blue for Ootaxa:
|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |
Light green for Morphotaxa:
|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |
"Andhrasaurus"
editYewtharaptor keeps changing the entry in the faunal list for the indeterminate thyreophoran/ankylosaur to "Andhrasaurus". I believe it is inappropriate to include "Andhrasaurus" in the list of fauna, given that it is a chimera that was named in an unreliable, self-published source that has been explicitly rejected in the literature.[1][2] At most, it should be listed in the "notes" column as a name that has been proposed for the material. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Andrhasaurus" appears as an invalid taxon with it´s proper color code and clarifications of latter interpretations of the material. Yewtharaptor (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the same way as how "Campylognathoides indicus" is listed as an invalid pterosaur when it's actually a fish. However, there genuinely is an indeterminate thyreophoran of some kind, possibly a basal ankylosaur; the fact that those remains were among a chimeric assemblage invalidly "Andhrasaurus" in a self-published source is relatively unimportant compared to the genuine existence of the thyreophoran material. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- ^ Galton, Peter M.; Carpenter, Kenneth (2016-02-17). "The plated dinosaur Stegosaurus longispinus Gilmore, 1914 (Dinosauria: Ornithischia; Upper Jurassic, western USA), type species of Alcovasaurus n. gen". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 279 (2): 185–208. doi:10.1127/njgpa/2016/0551. ISSN 0077-7749.
- ^ Galton, Peter M. (2019-02-28). "Earliest record of an ankylosaurian dinosaur (Ornithischia: Thyreophora): Dermal armor from Lower Kota Formation (Lower Jurassic) of India". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 291 (2): 205–219. doi:10.1127/njgpa/2019/0800. ISSN 0077-7749.
Split article?
editHello! I ran across this article in the GAN queue and was considering reviewing it; however there was one major thing that I noticed and wanted to bring up before I started the review. It seems like this article should be split, with the current article focusing on the details of the formation and a new list article comprising all of the tables of fossils that have been extracted from it. A prose summary of the formation's contents could then be included. I wanted to know the thoughts of some other editors, because as it stands this article is not (in my opinion) focused enough on its primary subject to pass GAN, but I think it would be if that one small change to its structure was made. Fritzmann (message me) 18:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! When I reworked the article, I took as a basis that the tables should be included in it. If it were to be separated, then it would be very empty. I understand that the written parts may seem very short, but there is the problem that there are not so many sources to fill them properly. Yewtharaptor (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Fritzmann and Yewtharaptor: I also came across the article from the GAN. While the tables look like they have value and obviously took a lot of work (I wouldn't want to throw them away), they present the reader with a massive wall of data. There's so much of it, with no introduction at all, that it's very difficult to make any sense of it. At the very least, they need some sort of a prose introduction/explanation/summary. Take a look at the Fossils section in the GA Marcellus Formation#Fossils, that's a good idea of what to go for. Then, if the subject of Fossils of the Kota Formation can be shown to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, the tables can be split off along the lines of the GA Fossils of the Burgess Shale.
- I don't feel there's much sense going through with the GAN review as the article presently exists. The need for a split meets GA quick fail condition 3, as it needs a major cleanup tag ({{Too many charts}}). After this is addressed, the article can be re-nominated without prejudice. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I'll also note the discussion at Special:Permalink/1171502489#Kota Formation: too much tabular material? RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I might be a little late to the party, but splitting the table out of the article and including a prose summary of the fauna would probably be best. It also works for articles like Morrison Formation and Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation, so I see no reason why it shouldn't here. Including the new fossils of / paleobiota of article using a main article template would be a good course of action, the likes of which can again be seen on the Morrison Formation page. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Morrison Formation is a much more popular topic with quite a few casual readers. I'd suggest keeping the tables at least, but I do agree with making a more in-depth page. If such a page is required to be created, I would be more than ready to help. DNB XD (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kota Formation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
As per Reidgreg and the discussion on the article's talk page, it is apparent that a split or at least a restructuring of the way the article presents its graphs is necessary. As such, it requires maintenance before becoming a Good Article and thus fails criterion 3 of the quickfail criteria. Because of this, I will be closing this nomination as a quickfail, but strongly encourage a re-nomination as soon as this one issue is addressed one way or the other. Fritzmann (message me) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Given how little views this article gets, (only around 14 a day), splitting is not really worthwhile. Not every article needs to be a GA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)