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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

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)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

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: 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 • Watch review

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it could be improved in general, if there's any equations people think are missing, and because I'd like to maybe take this to featured list.

Thanks, Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Dedhert.Jr

@Nerd1a4i I think I can help, although I am still trying to understand how the peer review works (as well as FL). You may also see some examples in our FLs. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; let me know what recommendations you have! I'm also not entirely sure I follow the guidelines on accessibility, especially in terms of tables, so any advice on that would be greatly appreciated as well. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try my best. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Temporarily, I could only think about the lead that was too short. It needs an explanation: what are differential equations in mathematics (explain it understandably, per WP:TECHNICAL, what is the background or history of differential equations (make it briefly), what makes the difference between the linear ordinary differential and the non-linear one (try to explain it step by step based on the difficulty to all readers, making the audience to understand as I mentioned in the previous point, specifically per WP:ONEDOWN). Never forget that when you write all of the facts, you need to put some reliable sources; I recommend you avoid some sources like MathWorld, PlanetMath, and other non-books and non-journal sources. If you remain struggling to find which sources are reliable, you can ask WT:WPM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice - I am surprised MathWorld is considered an unreliable source! I will go through and adjust these when I next have time. Do you think it needs any media (e.g. images of the Lorenz attractor, etc.)? Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware some people may misunderstand because of my comments above about MathWorld, explicitly and directly pointing at something that according to them makes mine seem to be harsh. Furthermore, I meticulously can give the background of some discussion about it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Kusma

I will review this soon. Good general sources with long lists of differential equations are [1] and [2]. —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2024 (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 • Watch review

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

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)