Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article approximately 6x since December, and it is now by far the longest geological period article. I modelled it after Paleocene, which is the only geological timespan article to be listed as either GA or FA. Some of the prose is clunky and repetitive, but I think the overall structure of the article is sound. Thanks, Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am ignorant of the subject but I noticed the lead has a sentence about the beginning of the Toarcian stage, but not about the beginnings of the Middle and Late Epochs. Aren't the epochs a more important subdivision? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Suggest you use User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js As the blog then shows up red maybe put a hidden comment to future editors if it should not be deleted and why. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check the "further reading" section - e.g. I wonder whether a good overview book has been published since 2004. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Suggest you submit it for GA as soon as you close this peer review as often there is a long wait for GAR. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
(not specifically for GA, just improvements in general) Thanks for working on a core article! More to come later hopefully.
That was it from me, ping me if things are unclear. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks pretty comprehensive. Only had very limited time so didn't analyse much - plant section looks a bit choppy but will no doubt be fine-tuned. Structure looks sound. Great to see the period/epoch articles getting the buffing now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article approximately 6x since December, and it is now by far the longest geological period article. I modelled it after Paleocene, which is the only geological timespan article to be listed as either GA or FA. Some of the prose is clunky and repetitive, but I think the overall structure of the article is sound. Thanks, Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am ignorant of the subject but I noticed the lead has a sentence about the beginning of the Toarcian stage, but not about the beginnings of the Middle and Late Epochs. Aren't the epochs a more important subdivision? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Suggest you use User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js As the blog then shows up red maybe put a hidden comment to future editors if it should not be deleted and why. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check the "further reading" section - e.g. I wonder whether a good overview book has been published since 2004. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Suggest you submit it for GA as soon as you close this peer review as often there is a long wait for GAR. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
(not specifically for GA, just improvements in general) Thanks for working on a core article! More to come later hopefully.
That was it from me, ping me if things are unclear. FemkeMilene ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks pretty comprehensive. Only had very limited time so didn't analyse much - plant section looks a bit choppy but will no doubt be fine-tuned. Structure looks sound. Great to see the period/epoch articles getting the buffing now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)