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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Greenfield tornado

I've listed this article for peer review in the hopes that I can get this up to FA quality by May 21. On that date, I expect to see an uptick in coverage on the tornado (yes, I had this at FAC less than a year it happened - I'm lucky it was so well documented!). I've addressed much of the original scrutiny from the FAC, and want to get this as high of a quality as I can by the time people come back here for its first anniversary.

Thanks, Departure– (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• I removed the coordinates as inappropriate for a linear event. Other tornado articles tend not to have them, and I hope that those that do were short runs or point to a town that was destroyed or something. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  There are few things I can directly point to with coordinates without synthesis; there's really only the tornado's touchdown and lifting points, Greenfield itself, and various points of damage. It's not too important to the article itself so the coordinates are probably best left out. Departure– (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

List of Iowa tornadoes

I've listed this article for peer review because I’m looking to make this a featured list, and if not that then I just want to see how it can be improved.

Thanks, ActuallyElite (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I will do this one. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

For a featured list the article must have;

• Alt text on all images.
• Row scopes on all its tables.
• Column scopes on all its tables.
• Archived sources.
• No ® symbols in any references.
• No unreliable sources such as Stormstalker, a WordPress hosted website.
• All the county columns in tables be linked.
• Explained abbreviations of cardinal directions.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Finished all recommendations ActuallyElite (talk)

Macrobdella decora

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate this for FA eventually and would like to know what changes, beyond some expansion, are needed.

Thanks, Cremastra _talk 22:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Dracophyllum

Lede

• "fulvous" is a wonderful word, but prolly stick to dull orange for the lede
  • Done.
• maybe sister taxon > closest relative?, But keep wiki link
  • Done.
• pretty much all subsequent instances of Macrobdella decora should be M. decora
• Macrobdella decora is North America east > M. decora is found in North America
  • Fixed.
• why doesn't the map show the Mexican population?
  • It does. It's a red dot at the far bottom.
• "the question remains unanswered" so it may or may not be panmitic? Just pure conjecture from the scientists? If there is some evidence say There is some evidence that..., or if there isn't say It is hypothesised or Scientists assume... or similar
• " The species" > It is not conisdered...
  • Done.
• "anticoagulant" > blood thinner
  • Done.
• " species, and a comparsion" new sentence beginning: A comparison
  • Done
• as "comparatively rare". > comparatively rare." move punc
  • Done
• "Macro simply means big," || in what language?
  • Ugh. The source doesn't say but it's obviously derived from wikt:μακρός. I'll see if I can dig something up that actually says that.
• "A common name for the species is the North American medicinal..." > It is commonly known as the...
  • Done

Description and rest of article

• make image a little bigger
• Is the "body" the whole length of the leech or not?
• "A jawed leech, Macrobdella decora..." > not a fan of this construction, just skip the A jawed leech, it is implicit
• "and found that it could not tolerate hypertonicity," || does this refer to overly salty or non-salty solutions?
• "The most widely distributed Macrobdella species, M. decora, is found i" > Being the most widely distributed Macrobdella species, M. decora is found in...
• Interactions with humans could be a new section> "Uses" or maybe "History"
• Conservation doesn't need a sub-sub section, just slap it in the distribution section.
• I would like maybe a couple more images if that were possible?
• This isn't a rule, but I think convention is to order Description above Taxonomy.
• For FA, all images need Alt text

That's all my comments for now. If you have time, I would appreciate a review of Flower, the PR is linked in my signature. Cheers, Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 07:27, 4 May 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)

CMD

• Some redundancy in the lead about the lack of description. Saying "undescribed" with a link, probably fine. However, the "although this has yet to be published" is out of place. Firstly, a bit redundant if that is all it is trying to convey. Secondly, surely almost everything is yet to be published, rather than just that fact? "a scientific name has yet to be given" is a similar redundancy. Perhaps a lead rewrite should consolidate the implications for a lack of description into one paragraph.
• "The name "Bosavi woolly rat" is still provisional", no source for this, or an explanation for how a non-scientific name can be "provisional".
• History seems to mix together information about the crater with the chronological history. It is probably worth separating those topics. There is some location information in the Description section too.
• "As of 2025, the Bosavi woolly rat does not have an official scientific name, but it is thought to be in the genus Mallomys, within the family Muridae". These are not exactly linked points, not having an official name is not quite the same as not considered a species, which is what would be the relevant information for genus inclusion.
• "It is to be named by Dr. Kristofer Helgen" raises further questions. What does that mean? Is there a timeframe? We are a decade and a half from the initial discovery, so the "it is to be named" could have been an intention 15 years ago or last year.

CMD (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Hi, sorry, I hadn't seen this earlier. Thank you very much for the feedback! I'll fix the article based on it. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)