Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review

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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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. Click here to submit an article for a fact check 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. Go to WP:PR

---

Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)

Kronosaurus

While waiting for Kronosaurus to be formally diagnosed using a proposed neotype specimen, I have decided to considerably expand the article. The use of the 2009 McHenry's thesis was very useful to me. I set myself the objective of proposing this article for proofreading so that it reaches the GA level, given that it is a fairly emblematic taxon of pliosaurs. If a redescription is published later, I could possibly upgrade it to FA level.

Thanks, Amirani1746 (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

I suggest taking an article to WP:GA first before nominating it for FA, as a reviewer will give some helpful advice on how to improve the article. After reviewing this article, I do not see any major concerns and suggest that this be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Wiles

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 20 July 2024, 02:21 UTC

Last edit: 5 August 2024, 19:10 UTC

Plant micro-reserve

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fact Checks

Vishnufelis

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)