Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 |
| Shortcuts |
|---|
|
| General information |
| Departments |
| Taskforces |
| Resources |
| Related WikiProjects |
| At other WikiMedia Foundation projects |
| Useful templates |
|
| Task list |
|
|
 Welcome to the peer review page of the WikiProject Palaeontology, which is a way to receive feedback on paleontology-related articles. This review was initiated to improve the communication and collaboration within the WikiProject Palaeontology. In contrast to WP:Peer Review, where ready-made articles may be submitted to prepare them for the high standards required at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, we here focus on short content reviews ("Fact Checks") without paying too much attention to stylistic details. For authors: Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality may be submitted. This includes works in progress, in which case guidance in the process of writing may be provided. At the other extreme, this also includes recognised content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date. Although direct collaborative editing on listed articles is encouraged, the nominator is expected to address upcoming issues. Reviews will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time. For reviewers: Single drive-by comments are encouraged. Since this review does not lead to any kind of article approval, complete reviews are not required. Fact Checks Fact checks are relatively quick reviews that are focused on article content. They are mainly used to assess the article's accuracy, and can be applied to any article, regardless of quality or length. To get an article fact-checked, click the button below to create a new section. Please indicate if you would, in addition, also like to receive critique on style, prose, layout and comprehensiveness.
Full Peer Review Full peer reviews are longer and more rigorous, and also involve critique on style, prose, and layout. These are useful for getting an expanded article into shape for WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and are more likely to attract non-expert reviewers who may check comprehensibility. For this type of review, please go to WP:PR and follow the instructions there. The review, together with other Natural Sciences reviews, will be automatically transcluded to this page.
|
Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)
Brown bear
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve this highly important article.
Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith and Vanamonde93: Pinging the two main reviewers of my last FAC. I took your advice and will be stepping away from narwhal for a little while. In the meantime, I've taken it upon myself to really work on this article. What are your thoughts? FA-level? Or in need of more work? I'd appreciate reviews below. Regards, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Rumford Medal
A former FL article. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like I've addressed all of the issues that were brought up in the article's FLRC discussion. However, the lead and prose of the article might need improvement. I'm looking for any feedback to improve the article so as to bring it back to FL-status.
Thanks, Nitro Absynthe (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Kavyansh
- " known as Count Rumford, who is known for his works on" — to avoid repetition of 'known', can we rephrase 'who is known for his works' to 'famous for his works' or something similar?
- '£1000' v. '£2,000' — Inconsistency in comma, it seems. Please do let me know if I am missing something here.
- "Presented by Britain's Royal Society" — I feel we don't have a evident need to specify 'Britain' here, let me know if you have a contrasting viewpoint.
- "British scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as" v. "Count Rumford (Sir Benjamin Thompson)" {{{1}}} — I feel there should be consistency in the usage of 'Sir'.
- You might wanna highlight the row in grey for the years when No award was given. Something like what I have done for 1976 here
- Please go through the alt text once again. For instance, for this image, we have alt text: "Black-and-white photographic portrait of Benjamin Thompson". Now neither is it Black-and-white nor is it a photograph (its a painting, so just writing 'portrait' would work). On a positive note, its really great to see that you have used alt text!
- Do we need sorting feature for Nationality column? Moreover, how is sorting being handled for those distinguished gentlemen having multiple citizenship?
- Our citations have both 'Royal Society' and 'The Royal Society' used as the website name. Need some consistency there.
- Also, how have we decided which websites in citations are to be linked and which are not?
- "13 Aug 2003" v. "5 August 2004 v. "26 Jan 2009" — Abbreviate it everywhere or nowhere. These are just some examples, please go through all citations.
Well done! This truly deserves to be a FL. These are just a few points, mostly suggestions, which I feel will help this excellent list to transform into "what we believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia"! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 16 June 2024, 07:32 UTC
- Last edit: 19 June 2024, 19:00 UTC
Rhea (moon)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 14 June 2024, 21:31 UTC
- Last edit: 20 June 2024, 17:12 UTC
Algebra
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
IAU designated constellations
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in excellent shape and I'd like to go for featured list. I wanted to get the opinions on that for further improvement.
Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List of nonlinear ordinary differential equations
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 3 June 2024, 07:07 UTC
- Last edit: 25 June 2024, 11:44 UTC
Nodoroc
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to see it get a higher rating at some point.
Thanks, MallardTV (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Bonn–Oberkassel dog
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.
- Date added: 17 May 2024, 17:10 UTC
- Last edit: 13 June 2024, 16:13 UTC
Fact Checks
Another in a series of obscure Siwalik cats, I suspect this article has a few more issues than the prior ones I've brought here. There is no supporting material for this one, although I had some time ago requested an image over at WP:PALEOART. That makes it a bit sad-looking, alas. Thanks in advance, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Vishnufelis is an early fossil genus of feline – The "early" is slightly confusing here and a bit much for the first sentence. Consider moving it where you discuss it's age. Also, I would add "cat" behind "feline", to increase accessibility of the first sentence.
- Done
- based on the first felid cranial material found in Asia – write "of a fossil cat"? The "fossil" seems necessary.
- Done
- two large fragments of a skull along with several smaller pieces – Sounds quite vague. I wonder what we loose if we just write "a fragmentary skull"?
- Done
- by one K. Aiyengar – what is the "one" doing?
- Removed. Too much time spent reading older works can skew my writing style.
- Additionally, he drew the fossils and a reconstruction of the skull on Plate IX, figures 1, 1a, and 1b in the same paper. – This is excessive detail; we never give figure plates for a paper (we don't even refer to our own images in our Wikipedia articles).
- This was an in-article note about which figures in the plate were of Vishnufelis. I hoped to get an image and then remove it, but that didn't happen. Commented out (not removed completely for my future sanity).
- Siwaliks, holotype – link
- Done
- present on the fossil – "preserved in the fossil"?
- Done
- very primitive member – do you mean "basal"?
- "Very primitive" is what Pilgrim called it. I didn't want to assume it automatically meant basal.
- History and naming – Call this "History of discovery"? "History" alone can mean anything (evolutionary history, life history, etc). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- "History and naming" is the semi-standard name I've been using for that first section across fossil felid articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, looks good to me! But I would write "Vishnufelis is a fossil genus of feline cat" (not putting "cat" in brackets) because "cat" can refer to Felidae in general, so "feline cat" makes sense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, feline is widely considered a synonym for cat in English, so that reads as redundant. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to our articles, though, see Felidae. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, feline is widely considered a synonym for cat in English, so that reads as redundant. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)