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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Weather of 2008

I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor and weather weenie aspiring to get some higher-quality articles done. I want to FL this article eventually, but it's probably not there yet. I want the eyes of a more experienced non-weather (because I'm afraid I'm using too much jargon) editor on this list.

Thanks, Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Bosavi woolly rat

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on improving it and want to bring this to GA someday. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Happy Feet (penguin)

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 March 2025, 10:16 UTC

Last edit: 25 March 2025, 06:16 UTC

Equality (mathematics)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to prepare this article for a GA review. I've never done a GA review, so I don't really know what I'm doing. I'd mostly like to make sure this article isn't missing any major details, and doesn't have any issues that might cause it to quick-fail. Thank you! – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In a different place regarding this, see here. I'm just passing the redirection. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

List of longhorn beetle (Cerambycidae) species recorded in Britain

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to bring this to FL but have very little experience with lists and don't know precisely what is looked for. Looking for ways to improve it further. I think it's good now, but it probably is, in fact, not.

Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Environmental hazard

I've listed this article for peer review because... Although this page was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, and is also rated "high-importance" in the Environment category, the quality of information is very poor. Later sections of the article consist almost solely of poorly structured examples, without proper definitions or information regarding international standards. There is no section on psychological hazards, which the introductory part mentions several times. Thanks, GoldenPhoenix123 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Outline of caves

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to a featured list, and I'm wondering what I would need to add to get it there. I think that it's close, but I need a second (or third!) set of eyes. Thanks in advance!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carl Friedrich Gauss

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it as a featured article and I believe it meets all criteria.

Thanks, Sushidude21! (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2025 (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)

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: 26 February 2025, 18:34 UTC

Stingless bee

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: 22 October 2024, 19:09 UTC

Last edit: 17 March 2025, 13:25 UTC