Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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)[edit]

Geologic time scale[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for both general and specific feedback to further improve the article after the major revisions in the past two years. My intent is to get the article into a suitable state for a GA / A-Class / FA nomination.

Thanks, Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this peer review. My initial comments are about the new log-spiral diagram image (Geologic time scale - spiral - ICS colours (light) - path text.svg) that you have created and placed (on 16 April 2024) in the Introduction section of the article. I like the diagram, particularly that it avoids the problem of the previous diagram (in which present day is joined to the start of the Hadean as if it were a cycle). Please correct the typo spelling error in text annotating the Archaean, in the centre of your new diagram: magenetic should be corrected to magnetic. I suggest that in the dates/ages, the symbol for a zero should be changed from slashed zero to ordinary zero. I think there is no chance of confusing zero for another number in this diagram but slashed zero is relatively niche and will probably confuse more general readers than it helps. GeoWriter (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the first commentary. It took me a while to come up with a design I both liked, thought to be aesthetically pleasing and clearly informative. I've made the requested changes to non-slashed zeros and the spelling correction.

On this particular image, there are multiple versions - two alternative colour schemes for people with colour vision deficiencies. Do you know of any nice way to link them in the lead image with the possibility of the user to switch between them? A kind of slideshow type image frame so that it allows a user to choose a more accessible colour scheme. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FAC. This is an important article.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narwhal[edit]

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC. Will not close the PR until I'm given the green light. I'm mostly here for a thorough prose review.

Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a read and provide some comments. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also have a look soon, but please let's take it slowly and by the books this time. Doing things fast is not going to get it ready for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 1983 North American blizzard[edit]

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)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945[edit]

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)[reply]

Domestic rabbit[edit]

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, Recon rabbit 18:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by PJW[edit]

I noticed this on a list of articles requesting peer review and swung by just out of curiosity. I have no subject-specific background. That said, here are a few minor suggestions:

The images in the History section display strangely in a way that creates way too much white space, at least on a large monitor.
The lead describes them almost entirely as pets. The body, however, also discusses them more diversely.
~~I would also consider moving Experimentation down lower in the article to be a section of its own alongside As pets and As livestock. Possibly these three could be grouped under a single header.~~
The article says there are eleven coat patterns, but only four are shown. If these four somehow form the basis for the eleven, that should be explained more clearly. Otherwise, there should probably be just one picture. Alternatively, although I have no experience working with this template, you could find the other seven and make a gallery.
The Health section is way too long. It also appears to include information not specific to domestic rabbits. I would suggest creating a child page for this content and using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
Although it contains what looks to be some relevant and well-sourced material, I don't believe an encyclopedia should have a section on Advantages and disadvantages. I would move select material elsewhere in the article and eliminate the section.
I see now that there is already a section on experimentation, which I think is probably (?) misclassified as being a form of livestock use. Unless there is a good reason to retain this classification, I would move that up one heading level and integrate the material from the History section into it as appropriate. Experimentation would be worth a sentence or two as part of their history, but this doesn't fit well as the lone subsection of the first section of the article.
Do the sources confirm that rabbits used in these other ways (i.e., not as pets) are, in fact, classified as "domestic"? I'm guessing this is right, but I would at least check.
When you're satisfied with the body of the article, review WP:LEAD and make edits there accordingly.

Best wishes with the article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I had done some work on the maintenance of this article and noted initially that the subject was confused on whether it wanted to be about the domesticated rabbit in general or rabbits as pets, but not the specifics on why that was. I'll be working to make the scope more coherent around the end of next week. Recon rabbit 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. If you haven't already, you might consider advertising this request for reviews on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects or that of the rabbit article in order to get some more content-based feedback. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgo interferometer

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: 2 February 2024, 22:38 UTC

Last edit: 16 March 2024, 10:21 UTC

List of Johnson solids

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 December 2023, 14:15 UTC

Last edit: 21 March 2024, 16:57 UTC

Fact Checks[edit]

Vishnufelis[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  Not according to our articles, though, see Felidae. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis