Wikipedia:Peer review/Ratite/archive1

Ratite[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently added a lot of information, and feel that the quality of the article may have increased. I want total honesty on everything from organization down to grammar.

Thanks, speednat (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: , here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead needs to be expanded. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but the etymology is only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
Watch overlinking per WP:OVERLINK - Gondwana is linked twice in just the lead. A good rule is to link once in the lead, once in the article body (first instance in each case) and once in the infobox.
Biggest problem is lack of refs. Article needs more references, for example the Living forms section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break the flow. They should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR and avoid WP:JARGON. For example, see sentences like They have no separation of pterylae and apteria, and finally, they have a palaeognathous palate.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]