(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Peer review/New mammal species)
Any feedback on how to improve this page would be very welcome, especially the best way to display mainly web-based references, and whether the division into taxonomic order is the best way of displaying the information. Petemella 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be a good list, why are empty sections included - unless there is something to go in them, they should probably be <!--commented out-->.-- Peta 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair point, I put them in as a guide to other contributors where to put things, and as a guide to which classification system I was using. When I've got a spare few minutes will look to blank them out. Thanks for the input. Petemella 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- All content except lead is bulleted. It would look much better in paragraph form. Also too many red wiki-links, just make them italic.
- Tutmosis
00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer the bullets... I think it helps seperate each species in the list. But what does everyone else think? Fair point about the red links, I itend to stub most of the animals when I get time.
- This is an impressive topic. Just a few thoughts,
- Maybe the article should be moved to New mammal species in the 21st century, to allow for articles on previous centuries (something the lead of this article alludes to).
- I think your divisions are fine, but is there any way the bullet points can be turned into some proper prose?
- I agree that something needs to be done with so many red links, but as you suggested, I'd rather see them turned into stubs.
- Thanks for the comments. I like the idea of moving it to a more time-specific title, but I think decades rather than centuries would be preferable - a page dedicated to the 20th or 19th century would be way too long! As two people have both commented on the bullet points I'll go about trying to change them, although I do still prefer the bullets. Petemella 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Peer review/New mammal species)
Any feedback on how to improve this page would be very welcome, especially the best way to display mainly web-based references, and whether the division into taxonomic order is the best way of displaying the information. Petemella 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be a good list, why are empty sections included - unless there is something to go in them, they should probably be <!--commented out-->.-- Peta 05:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fair point, I put them in as a guide to other contributors where to put things, and as a guide to which classification system I was using. When I've got a spare few minutes will look to blank them out. Thanks for the input. Petemella 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- All content except lead is bulleted. It would look much better in paragraph form. Also too many red wiki-links, just make them italic.
- Tutmosis
00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer the bullets... I think it helps seperate each species in the list. But what does everyone else think? Fair point about the red links, I itend to stub most of the animals when I get time.
- This is an impressive topic. Just a few thoughts,
- Maybe the article should be moved to New mammal species in the 21st century, to allow for articles on previous centuries (something the lead of this article alludes to).
- I think your divisions are fine, but is there any way the bullet points can be turned into some proper prose?
- I agree that something needs to be done with so many red links, but as you suggested, I'd rather see them turned into stubs.
- Thanks for the comments. I like the idea of moving it to a more time-specific title, but I think decades rather than centuries would be preferable - a page dedicated to the 20th or 19th century would be way too long! As two people have both commented on the bullet points I'll go about trying to change them, although I do still prefer the bullets. Petemella 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)