Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 7, 2013

The article cited does not call the Psittacosaurus an "index fossil," instead, it uses two sets of index fossils (without Psittacosaurus in either set) and the first appearance datum and last appearance datum of Psittacosaurus and its field distribution to define a Pisttacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of East Asia, not "central Asia."

It is not an index fossil, but defines a biochron according to the citation. It is not Central Asian, it is an East Asian biochron. Also, the sediments are Lower Cretaceous, the time is Early Cretaceous.

This sentence should be changed to read:

"The abundance of this dinosaur in the fossil record has led to establishing the Psittacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of east Asia."

See 978-0231084833, pp. 168-170 and the cited source, Lucas, Spencer G. (2006). The Psittacosaurus biochron, Early Cretaceous of Asia. Cretaceous Research 27: 189–198.

--68.107.134.74 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)--68.107.134.74 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Orlady. You will usually get a quicker response for this kind of thing at WP:ERRORS. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted there about five hours ago and got no response until I asked here. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I was completely unaware of this post until after I had edited the blurb. I responded to WP:ERRORS. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It still seemed useful to post here once my post at WP:ERRORS had been ignored for four hours. I have seen these front page blurbs copied other places (Wikipedia mirrors use the blurbs as their openings), and they should be correct. It's my opinion that it should have been checked better before winding up on the Main Page and ignored for five hours once the error was pointed out. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)