Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Eyeball7878

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Eyeball7878/Macrofossil

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Macrofossil

I think I understand your goal with the sentence that you've added to the lead, and I agree that it's important to highlight the variety of macrofossils in the lead. That said, I think that the sentence is vague enough that it's not clear what it's adding - a little more detail or explicit reference to the types of things you're talking about would be helpful to the reader. Along the same lines, the 'preserved organic remains' definition does not include things like tracks / impressions - it might be worth circling back to the definition given in the Fossil article.

You've added a lot of really good content and made this a way more comprehensive article! Including the history of the term / concept is very valuable, and it pairs nicely with the addition of the 'modern study' section. The types section is also a valuable addition. I do have some feedback that I think could strengthen your additions to the article.

In the "Historical Background" section, I would combine the three subsections into a single more coherent narrative. It would be useful to provide more information about why and in what context the term macrofossil was coined, and when making a distinction between micro/macrofossils became necessary.

The "Modern Study" section focuses entirely on plant macrofossils, and the specific way we are using them in class. This type of research makes up a very small fraction of modern study of macrofossils, so it's not really appropriate to discuss it exclusively in the section on the modern study of macrofossils. It might be best to remove this section, and instead address the ways in which macrofossils are used in the 'Varieties' section in greater detail.

The 'Collection and Preservation' section should probably be removed - the variety of macrofossils that exist is too great for a section of this kind to be meaningful. The source you're pulling from seems to be referring to specific types of fossils from a specific place. The "should" language is not appropriate for wikipedia.

Below, I'll list some line-level edits for typos, grammar, clarity, and precision:

The scare quotes around "museum quality" indicate that a different phrase should probably be used.

There are some grammar issues with this sentence: "The origins of the term Macrofossil dates back to 1937 and was first used by G.D Hanna a US paleontologist and malacologist." Maybe try something like "The term macrofossil was coined in 1937 by American paleontologist and malacologist G.D. Hanna."

The word "reconstruct" is used in the "Scientific Thought" and "Vertebrate Macrofossils" subsections. It would be good to be more specific about the type of understanding that is achieved with these fossils - 'reconstruct' makes it sound like you're actually trying to put the animal back together.

"George" -> "Georges"

What were the "changing views" that you reference, and how did macrofossils support them?

"School of thought" -> discipline

"The study of these fossils is called Paleontology." Paleontology encompasses much more than just vertebrate macrofossils.

"They are best preserved in sandstone." I don't think this is necessarily true. I see where it says this in the Trace fossil article, but the source is from the sixties and is only discussing marine fossils.

Things that should/could have links to other wikipedia pages: G. D. Hanna; extinct; pollen microfossils; ichnology.

Other than the "should" in the "Collection and Preservation" section, I think that the tone and balance of your additions are excellent.

The sources you've added seem fairly strong. I would consider citing the work in which Hanna coined the term macrofossil. Citations 1, 4, 5, and 12 look like they are broken/incomplete. Citation 12 showing the wrong year, so you should fix that and double check all of them.

You haven't added any images/media, and the ones in the existing article seem fairly strong. I don't think work is required here.

I think that you have added a lot of really valuable content, and that the draft you've written is an improvement on the current article. That said, I do think that there's room for revision and cleanup, as I've outlined above. Globally, I think it's worth considering what distinguishes this article from the Fossil article - why do macrofossils need their own article? To me, it's probably most important to highlight the history of the term, and the research contexts in which it's commonly used (since most macrofossil researchers just call them fossils). I hope some of this feedback was useful. Strong work overall!