Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Cambrian explosion/Archive1
As the article is included on the WP CD I feel that it should be honed to the best it could be, and it would be nice to get it on the path to being a good/featured article.
I appreciate that the article still needs inline references, and intend to cover this point thoroughly over the next fortnight.
Verisimilus 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you note, the lack of inline referencing is a fairly major concern - it will be a big job. However, other structural points:
- The lead could do with a bit of expansion, perhaps outlining briefly the explosion's wider significance in scientific debate about evolution etc.
- This would allow the first "Significance of the explosion" section (which seems a bit out of place where it is) to be incorporated partly into the history, and partly into the later "Evolutionary significance" section.
- The "Evolutionary significance" section could do with a bit of trimming, wikifying and perhaps splitting up into more managable chunks.
Done | Verisimilus T 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- The whole second half of the article needs a bit of cleaning up, particularly with regard to making wiki links.
- The main slog, however, will be inline referencing, and I think this should be your main priority. MAIS-talk-contr 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's great, thanks - I'll get started on the referencing when I get back home! | Verisimilus 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there. This is a very comprehensive article; good work on that. Two things I think you should work on:
- Consistent section titles. You need to make sure that the section titles follow a consistent format. There are too many different styles:
- Single word or short phrase: History, Data Sources, Geochemistry
- Phrase: Significance of the explosion, Significance of the data, Mechanistic basis for the Cambrian explosion
- Phrase?: Proterozoic predecessors? Early trace fossils?
- Sentence?: What caused the Cambrian explosion? Why did the Cambrian explosion take place when it did?
- Flow. While the article does seem to maintain a consistently scientific tone, it doesn't always maintain a good flow. Reread the article out loud and listen for phrases that just sound odd, such as
In the gap are found instead the largely enigmatic small shelly fossils, and clearly much more work is needed on these taxa. I read that and said "Wtf...?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done ? | I've addressed as much as I can - but it's a long article! Please let me know if there's more to be done. Verisimilus T 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)