This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Shortcuts |
---|
|
General information |
Departments |
Taskforces |
Resources |
Related WikiProjects |
At other WikiMedia Foundation projects |
Useful templates |
|
Task list |
|
·
changes |
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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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.
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.
|
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to see it get a higher rating at some point.
Thanks, MallardTV ( talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 ( talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Howdy, y'all. I am usually a history and archaeology editor, but this puppy goes a fair bit more into biology territory than I am normally used to, so I thought I would it open it up for folks to look at; I want to bring this to FAC eventually. :)
Thank you all so much for your time, Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Cool article :). Thanks for your work so far. My first impression is that it's too difficult to read in places.
If you read over the article to make it come closer to WP:MTAU, I'm happy to give a deeper read at a later time. Feel free to ping. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Another in a series of obscure Siwalik cats, I suspect this article has a few more issues than the prior ones I've brought here. There is no supporting material for this one, although I had some time ago requested an image over at WP:PALEOART. That makes it a bit sad-looking, alas. Thanks in advance, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Shortcuts |
---|
|
General information |
Departments |
Taskforces |
Resources |
Related WikiProjects |
At other WikiMedia Foundation projects |
Useful templates |
|
Task list |
|
·
changes |
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.
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.
|
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to see it get a higher rating at some point.
Thanks, MallardTV ( talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this article is off to a great start. I would continue looking for sources for the article and adding information. For ideas of what to include in the article, and how to format the information, I would look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles about volcanoes such as Cerro Blanco (volcano) or Coropuna. I hope this helps! Z1720 ( talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Howdy, y'all. I am usually a history and archaeology editor, but this puppy goes a fair bit more into biology territory than I am normally used to, so I thought I would it open it up for folks to look at; I want to bring this to FAC eventually. :)
Thank you all so much for your time, Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Cool article :). Thanks for your work so far. My first impression is that it's too difficult to read in places.
If you read over the article to make it come closer to WP:MTAU, I'm happy to give a deeper read at a later time. Feel free to ping. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Another in a series of obscure Siwalik cats, I suspect this article has a few more issues than the prior ones I've brought here. There is no supporting material for this one, although I had some time ago requested an image over at WP:PALEOART. That makes it a bit sad-looking, alas. Thanks in advance, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)