Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs
Contents
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 |
|
· changes |
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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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. [[WP:PR| ]] |
Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)
February 1983 North American blizzard
I've been looking at this article and considering a Featured Article nomination soon. Before this, I'd like for this article to be peer-reviewed. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 23:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking about taking it to FAC.
Thanks, The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Domestic rabbit
I've listed this article for peer review because after cleaning up all the maintenance templates I've found that the quality is all over the place. I would like to have someone else's eyes on it to see if there are redundant sections or obvious problems that I missed; ideally, I'd like to promote this to GA in the future.
Thanks, Reconrabbit 18:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Virgo interferometer
- 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: 2 February 2024, 22:38 UTC
- Last edit: 16 March 2024, 10:21 UTC
Hyper-Kamiokande
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to check if it's understandable for non-experts.
Thanks, Batmann (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
List of Johnson solids
- 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: 20 December 2023, 14:15 UTC
- Last edit: 21 March 2024, 16:57 UTC
Fact Checks
Another smaller article about an obscure Siwalik genus, but this time it's a barbourofelid rather than a felid- or is it? As before, I'm hoping that it is good enough for B-class even if it can't go to GAN. Additional note: the major sources are freely available online, so I'd appreciate someone checking my Description section against what the papers say- I'm still shaky on making it readable yet comprehensive. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- machaerodont – link/explain at first mention?
- Done.
- Sivasmilus is a fossil genus of barbourofelid – does it make sense to add ("false saber-toothed cat") here for readers who do not know what a barbourofelid is, and just want to know what the article is about?
- I dislike the name, but it's probably useful to casual readers. Done.
- "mental crest", "foramina", parastyle: link at first mention
- Done.
- In 2018 a study noted that the mandible fragment seemed to fit the holotype of Sivaelurus (a near-complete right maxilla, or upper jaw bone) quite well – A mysterious statement which is open to speculation. But what can we do if the authors are not more clear.
- Yeah, that was basically all they said.
- situated above the cheek teeth, – What does that mean, "above"? And why cheek teeth if you already used "premolar"?
- Changed to situated above the level of the premolars to reflect what the source said.
- a very distinct series of very fine serrations. – In most cases, "very" does not really add anything and can usually be removed.
- Done.
- a strong metastyle behind the principal cusp, and room for a parastyle in front of it – In front of what?
- In front of the principal cusp. Clarified.
- I can't see any further issues. Nicely done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Responded to some, still working on others. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long wait, I responded to and made the appropriate changes to the last two outstanding points. Thank you, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack:, by the by. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good! I changed to "B"-class, that WikiprojectMammals B-class checklist does again not work, you would need to fix that yourself (I will never understand those B-class checklists it seems). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Project-Independent Quality Assessment guys disabled use of B-clas checklists in banners, alas. But thank you for the review and reassessment! SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah I see, that simplifies things. And sure, you are welcome! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Project-Independent Quality Assessment guys disabled use of B-clas checklists in banners, alas. But thank you for the review and reassessment! SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good! I changed to "B"-class, that WikiprojectMammals B-class checklist does again not work, you would need to fix that yourself (I will never understand those B-class checklists it seems). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack:, by the by. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long wait, I responded to and made the appropriate changes to the last two outstanding points. Thank you, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Responded to some, still working on others. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
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)