The article was promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.
This article has had something like 30 copyedits, a scientific peer review, a prose review, and was partially written/proofed by an expert in the field. One of the longest dinosaur articles, I think it qualifies as comprehensive. I've been through the papers and books, and nothing appears to have been left out. Discredited theories (sprawling limb position, Monoclonius assignments, filled-in fenestrae, frill/horn combat, etc) are discussed, but not given undue weight. The prose has been polished up so that it is both technically correct, but without jargon, and is understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply