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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Homo erectus

I'm trying to get this to FA. It's a pretty big topic with lots of nuances, but it's also a pretty popular article so I'm trying to keep it short, easily intelligible to a general audience, with all the technicalities constrained to notes or child articles. I'm trying to get more opinions on the prose in general, my usage of notes, and (if you happen to be familiar with H. erectus) comprehensiveness or portrayal of the subject.

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Metrosideros bartlettii

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: 24 January 2025, 06:02 UTC

Last edit: 1 February 2025, 03:39 UTC

54 (number)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in taking it to GA, but there aren't that many number articles to go off of as models. I basically based this on 69 (number), WP:NUM/G, and 1 in that order. As you will see, because these articles are so abstract, they are kind of a list of properties without depth. I think that's fine because an explanation of the significance of, say, practical numbers does not actually belong in an article about the number unless the number is actually relevant to an applied use of that property. But it's not exactly inspiring reading either.

So, primarily, I want to know three things. 1) Where do you think the article too technical or too brisk? 2) Do you have an idea for a math topic I have not covered? 3) Do you have an idea for an applied-math or a cultural topic to cover?

I will be applying WP:NUM/NOT when considering 3, but we're very much in the "no bad ideas" space when it comes to brainstorming topics. I've been looking into a few numerology sources lately and 54 seems to be an odd enough number that it doesn't get attention from that crowd.

The material on Babylonian mathematics probably does not actually make sense yet because I need to condense and clarify it. The first paragraph of the Trigonometry section, similarly, probably leaps too quickly to the answer. I do welcome feedback on them, but I think I know generally what needs to change about them already.

Thanks, lethargilistic (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement

I've listed this stub for peer review because it is lacking in images, the source I added for procedure duration may need replacing, and the “other words” sections need inspecting. Any suggestions on expanding the article are also welcome.

Thanks, Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale

I'm looking for further feedback and perspectives on this article because I'm planning to nominate it for GA status in the future. I'd like an overall review and suggestions for improvement, since it may still have various problems, especially sources predominantly being in Japanese (since suitable English sources for this topic are quite hard to find)

Thanks! Wolf20482 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Neurocysticercosis

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 December 2024, 21:46 UTC

Last edit: 31 December 2024, 22:06 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)

Query from Z1720

@Sintropepe: It has been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Is this ready to be closed and the article nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not yet! I am finishing the "African stingless bees" content and I'll give a last check on "citation needed" tags! As soon as I finish, I'll notify you. Thanks for the reminder @Z1720 Sintropepe (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Review updated version

@Z1720 and Jens Lallensack: I think I addressed the items that we discussed. What do you think about its current content? Thanks again for your time.