Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I was planning on getting it to FA, but I became inactive a little after Valentine's Day, and that was a while ago. How would this do in an FA review?

Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been almost two months with no previous response, I'll try having a look at the sources. I'll make points in small bits over a few days. Macrophyseter | talk 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxobox previously did not have a temporal range in number dates, which I have put in. A method I've found useful in finding a number-dated temporal range would be to 1) identify the stratigraphy of the specific localities of the youngest and oldest known fossils of the genus, 2) identify the index fossils of these localities (i.e. Baculites compressus zone for the Archelon holotype), 3) refer to a geologic time scale that dates such index fossils (The one I use is the 2012 Geologic Time Scale book by Gradstein et al.).
• In Ref #5, I cannot find any mention of the genus' placement within the Protostegidae; instead, it says that the genus should be placed within the 'Dermochelydidae'. I presume that there may have been some taxonomic shifting afterward, but if that is the case I think this needs to be either addressed within the article or another source addressing it be added.