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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Brown bear

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve this highly important article.

Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Vanamonde93: Pinging the two main reviewers of my last FAC. I took your advice and will be stepping away from narwhal for a little while. In the meantime, I've taken it upon myself to really work on this article. What are your thoughts? FA-level? Or in need of more work? I'd appreciate reviews below. Regards, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Kavyansh

• " known as Count Rumford, who is known for his works on" — to avoid repetition of 'known', can we rephrase 'who is known for his works' to 'famous for his works' or something similar?
  • Reply: Changed from 'who is known for his works' to 'who is noted for his works'. Please let me know if there is an issue here.
• '£1000' v. '£2,000' — Inconsistency in comma, it seems. Please do let me know if I am missing something here.
  • Reply:  Done. Missed that error. Fixed it.
• "Presented by Britain's Royal Society" — I feel we don't have a evident need to specify 'Britain' here, let me know if you have a contrasting viewpoint.
  • Reply: Agreed. Other articles of RS Awards have omitted this too. Changed it to 'Presented by the Royal Society'.
• "British scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as" v. "Count Rumford (Sir Benjamin Thompson)" {{{1}}} — I feel there should be consistency in the usage of 'Sir'.
  • Reply:  Done. Added 'Sir' for consistency.
• You might wanna highlight the row in grey for the years when No award was given. Something like what I have done for 1976 here
  • Reply:  Done.
• Please go through the alt text once again. For instance, for this image, we have alt text: "Black-and-white photographic portrait of Benjamin Thompson". Now neither is it Black-and-white nor is it a photograph (its a painting, so just writing 'portrait' would work). On a positive note, its really great to see that you have used alt text!
  • Reply:  Done. Fixed the errors in the alt text.
• Do we need sorting feature for Nationality column? Moreover, how is sorting being handled for those distinguished gentlemen having multiple citizenship?
  • Reply: Sorting feature for 'Nationality' was already present when it was originally promoted to FL; I didn't know if removing that would amount to vandalism, so I didn't change it. I don't know if it would make sense now to keep it sortable with 'multiple citizenship' awardees present, so I've removed it.
• Our citations have both 'Royal Society' and 'The Royal Society' used as the website name. Need some consistency there.
  • Reply:  Done. 'Royal Society' kept as website name in all citations.
• Also, how have we decided which websites in citations are to be linked and which are not?
  • Reply: I tried to link citations according to MOS:DL, but I now realize repeat links are allowed for citations. Added WLs to all for consistency.
• "13 Aug 2003" v. "5 August 2004 v. "26 Jan 2009" — Abbreviate it everywhere or nowhere. These are just some examples, please go through all citations.
  • Reply.  Done. Dates kept unabbreviated in all citations.

Well done! This truly deserves to be a FL. These are just a few points, mostly suggestions, which I feel will help this excellent list to transform into "what we believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia"! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed review. I've made the necessary changes, please let me know if I've made an error anywhere. If the edits were satisfactory, do you think the article in its current state can be put for FLC? Or would it be too soon? Nitro Absynthe (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked sources for verifiability, nor have I done the accessibility review for table with a great depth, but except those points, this seems an excellent FLC candidate. I'd say just nominate it, there is absolutely nothing too significant that FLC cannot handle. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:17, 26 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)

Kusma

Looks pretty good. I have a few comments and suggestions for minor improvements. I know very little about astronomy, so I might be wrong, so don't listen to me if you think my suggestions are bad.

• In the lead, would it make sense to mention that Argo was split in 1750?
• Lead image: you could link equirectangular projection. Do I understand correctly that this image is the only thing in the article actually defining what the modern constellations are? What does the epoch mean?
• History: this is a bit too short. We are lacking what Ptolemy did, that the Southern celestial hemisphere is not observable from Europe, so these constellations were defined much later than the others. Then you could mention some of the most influential people like Lacaille, and mention what Delporte did and what the IAU did in 1922 and 1928.
• Modern constellations: if not in the History section, you should explain here that they are defined (more or less) by the lines in the image. (In particular they are not just a small number of visible stars each).
• There is a lot of detail on the abbreviations. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the lack of history more noticeable.
• Does anybody still use the "NASA abbreviations"?
• Table: Does "created by Keyser and de Houtman" mean the constellation and name were invented by these people? There are a lot of these; maybe they should be mentioned in the History section.
• It is a bit unclear which "meanings" get a link and which do not. Some links go to disambiguation pages, which is not very helpful
• Would pictures in the table be useful or not?
• Asterisms: was there actually a difference in meaning between "asterism" and "constellation" before people tried to unify the definitions?
• It is not clear to me that this (very short) section should be at the end; actually, as part of clarifying the definition, stating what a constellation is versus an asterism might make sense pretty early on.

Hope some of this is helpful, good luck with FLC when you go there. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

List of nonlinear ordinary differential equations

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: 3 June 2024, 07:07 UTC

Last edit: 25 June 2024, 11:44 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)