Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review

		This page has been retired
		The successor of this initiative is the Palaeo Article workshop, a place for collaborative article editing, and open for submissions!

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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Raphael Girard

I've listed this article for peer review because I added more information than it was first review on October 31 2024, plus it was originally supposed to be a draft when it was review however someone submitted to a article, Granted I didn't did it right I just added a "this article is a draft" command,

Thanks, Pupusareawesome (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Monster of Aramberri

I first made an attempt at GA review on one of the most frustrating prehistoric animals there is, something which unfortunately failed. As obviously, no one had done the same on Kronosaurus, I am asking this time for a review of the article before proceeding with a second GA attempt later. I thank in advance anyone who will do so, best regards. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

The GA review seemed to focus primarily on issues with sourcing and prose quality. I am not knowledgeable about this topic area, so I cannot comment on the former; I can however comment on the latter. Firstly, the two web sources are not correctly cited; if you remove the years from their inline citations it should be fixed. Please download User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to see these errors yourself.

On the prose itself, I think a submission at WP:GOCE would be helpful. There are many very small grammatical errors remaining in the article, along with lots of duplication (it is for example mentioned several times that preparations for the new fossils are still to be prepared or described). Take the following, non-exhaustive list:

• "When the material kept in Karlsruhe had the preparation finalized"

• "The rostrum measure 60 cm (24 in) long and contain three broken teeth."

• The "Size" subsection keeps saying "increased/decreased the length of the specimen"—which doesn't make sense in the slightest. The specimen was however long it was—you cannot increase or decrease that. What you can increase or decrease are proposals, but you can also assume that any literate person knows that 10 is smaller than 12, and so you can replace "further reduced the size of this specimen to between" with "proposed a size of...".

• "Some researchers also suggests that"

• "The neural tubes are visibly oval in shape" as opposed to ... metaphorically oval?

• "the articulations of the ribs with the latter which are quite particular" ... quite particular? what does that mean?

You also need to keep WP:MTAU in mind, specifically WP:ONEDOWN. You should expect to write this article to secondary-school level. At present, it is significantly above that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, sorry for the late, but what do you think about the current state of the article ? Amirani1746 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Stingless bee

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it as a "good articles" or "featured articles" candidate. I'd like an overall review to see if it is adequate to continue the proccess.

Thanks, Sintropepe (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Hi there, and thanks for working on an important article like this! I will quickly point out some general issues for now, but, if time allows, will be happy to do more detailed comments once you sorted these out:

• There are many paragraphs without inline citations towards the end of the article, and a number of "citation needed" tags. Every statement should be sourced with an inline citation, this is super important (or it will quick-fail at the good article nominees).
• The article seems quite unbalanced and goes into detail that is simply to much for this overview article. A good example are the two tables listing crops that benefit from pollination. The first one is ok I think (have it collapsed by default, though). The second one is definitely too much ("that are at least occasionally or potentially pollinated by stingless bees"). We should not write articles by shovelling in any detail that we can possibly find; we instead have to comprehensively cover the important aspects of the topic in a concise way. There should be a balance; it is not good to have sections that are very general and sections that are super detailed; the depth of detail should remain about equal throughout the article.
• Sections "Taxonomy" (including etymology and evolution) and "Description" are missing. The former could include a nice cladogram showing the interrelationships.
• The structure seems to be non-standard. I am not convinced that the grouping by geographical region (Stingless bees of Australia …) is a good choice. I recommend to have a look at some Featured Articles, such as Mantis, Coccinellidae, or Mayfly, and use these as a template.
• There is also a strong bias in the article as stingless bees of Africa do not really seem to be discussed.
• Hope that helps for a start! If you have any questions, let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Jens Lallensack Thank you so much! Your comments were already helpful and clear. I'll answer some points and proceed to the article's improvement.

• Lack of inline citations: I'll try either to find sources or delete the information. This last part of the article was left by me from the previous version.
• Regional sections: This was also information left from the previous version. I don't see it adequate either, but I focused more in adding new verified info than in deleting previous content. I'll see these examples and organize it differently
• African bias: The article definitely ended up with this bias, but there's not much literature produced about African stingless bees. You can notice that Brazil (where I'm from) is the center not only in biodiversity, but in scientific production and beekeeping techniques. Anyways, I'll search deeper for publications with these especies.

Sintropepe (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear that these where helpful! I personally strongly recommend to follow the structure of existing FAs instead of the current sectioning based on region. Organising by region might make sense within the "Relationships with humans" section (if you can find sources for Africa), but not when discussing their general biology. I fear that the article will have major problems at GAN or FAC with this current structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

Previous peer review

This is a serious disease that affects many people, so I want to get it to the featured article status that it deserves. I've overhauled and updated every section of the article. Please review my work so we can make this a good resource for others.

Thanks! AdeptLearner123 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

• The lead should be cut down to 4 paragraphs.
• I feel like the differential diagnosis section could be expanded a bit.
• Per WP:MEDDATE "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." I would suggest trying to find alternatives for any sources that were published pre-2014 and limiting the number of sources published pre-2019.

I only took a quick glance at the article but I may have more input later on. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I noticed a surprising lack of clinical guidelines used in this article. Based on a quick search I found [1] (NICE guidelines are very high quality), [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• The "Extraintestinal" symptoms could be expanded, past revisions had quite a bit more detail. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd recommend finding some other sources for the diagnosis section as a lot of the text comes from one source and it's usually ideal to have multiple sources confirming the information present. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiOriginal-9

There were 257 references before the recent edits. Now there are only 45? Is this actually an improvement? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)