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 articles
Diamantinasaurus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
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 articles
Fox News is reporting that Diamantinasaurus looked like a hippo. Clearly, this is an error, but has somehow made its way into this article. Wikipedia:DINO#Resources_and_references indicates reliable sources for dinosaur articles are peer-reviewed papers; news articles tend to be written by reporters who know nothing about dinosaurs, and references to news articles should be kept to a minimum. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On news reports, I'd say they could be used well for circumstantial stuff under history/discovery that isn't covered in the scientific sources. Did that on Nigersaurus for example. Don't think the info here should be its own section though, would fit better as reactions to the finds under discovery. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another general thing (for IJReid), I think "diagnosis" sections are way too technical for Wikipedia, such info should be simplified and incorporated into description or classification sections. That kind of section has never been included in a FAC, and would probably be cut down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that right as I saved the page, anyways, I removed it because even thought I think I did a good job, it might be removed anyways on copyright grounds. I had the significance separate because I did not realize it could be in discovery, although my second thoughts are that it fits better there anyways. IJReiddiscuss 00:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
