Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how to improve this highly important article.
Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith and Vanamonde93: Pinging the two main reviewers of my last FAC. I took your advice and will be stepping away from narwhal for a little while. In the meantime, I've taken it upon myself to really work on this article. What are your thoughts? FA-level? Or in need of more work? I'd appreciate reviews below. Regards, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll be waiting for a maximum of 2 months for a response. I'm in no rush to get this article to FA-status. In the meantime, I'll be dropping at WP:Guild of copy editors. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 10:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the "Interspecific predatory relationships" could use some trimming. I don't think interactions with smaller predators like wolverines and eagles is that important. One record of a golden eagle eating a cub is trivial, just like the line about a dead polar bear cub in a brown bear den. I suggest sticking to their main enemies and how they interact ecologically. The lines on polar bears could be rewritten using this as a source. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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: 16 June 2024, 07:32 UTC
- Last edit: 3 July 2024, 19:52 UTC
- 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: 14 June 2024, 21:31 UTC
- Last edit: 4 July 2024, 19:53 UTC
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get feedback on its current status and what improvements are required to fulfill the featured article criteria.
Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in excellent shape and I'd like to go for featured list. I wanted to get the opinions on that for further improvement.
Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma
Looks pretty good. I have a few comments and suggestions for minor improvements. I know very little about astronomy, so I might be wrong, so don't listen to me if you think my suggestions are bad.
- In the lead, would it make sense to mention that Argo was split in 1750?
- Lead image: you could link equirectangular projection. Do I understand correctly that this image is the only thing in the article actually defining what the modern constellations are? What does the epoch mean?
- History: this is a bit too short. We are lacking what Ptolemy did, that the Southern celestial hemisphere is not observable from Europe, so these constellations were defined much later than the others. Then you could mention some of the most influential people like Lacaille, and mention what Delporte did and what the IAU did in 1922 and 1928.
- Modern constellations: if not in the History section, you should explain here that they are defined (more or less) by the lines in the image. (In particular they are not just a small number of visible stars each).
- There is a lot of detail on the abbreviations. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the lack of history more noticeable.
- Does anybody still use the "NASA abbreviations"?
- Table: Does "created by Keyser and de Houtman" mean the constellation and name were invented by these people? There are a lot of these; maybe they should be mentioned in the History section.
- It is a bit unclear which "meanings" get a link and which do not. Some links go to disambiguation pages, which is not very helpful
- Would pictures in the table be useful or not?
- Asterisms: was there actually a difference in meaning between "asterism" and "constellation" before people tried to unify the definitions?
- It is not clear to me that this (very short) section should be at the end; actually, as part of clarifying the definition, stating what a constellation is versus an asterism might make sense pretty early on.
Hope some of this is helpful, good luck with FLC when you go there. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the review and those comments were extremely helpful. I'll definitely incorporate them into the article. Thanks again and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 June 2024, 07:07 UTC
- Last edit: 25 June 2024, 11:44 UTC
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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: 17 May 2024, 17:10 UTC
- Last edit: 13 June 2024, 16:13 UTC
Fact Checks
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)[reply]
- Vishnufelis is an early fossil genus of feline – The "early" is slightly confusing here and a bit much for the first sentence. Consider moving it where you discuss it's age. Also, I would add "cat" behind "feline", to increase accessibility of the first sentence.
- based on the first felid cranial material found in Asia – write "of a fossil cat"? The "fossil" seems necessary.
- two large fragments of a skull along with several smaller pieces – Sounds quite vague. I wonder what we loose if we just write "a fragmentary skull"?
- by one K. Aiyengar – what is the "one" doing?
- Removed. Too much time spent reading older works can skew my writing style.
- Additionally, he drew the fossils and a reconstruction of the skull on Plate IX, figures 1, 1a, and 1b in the same paper. – This is excessive detail; we never give figure plates for a paper (we don't even refer to our own images in our Wikipedia articles).
- This was an in-article note about which figures in the plate were of Vishnufelis. I hoped to get an image and then remove it, but that didn't happen. Commented out (not removed completely for my future sanity).
- Siwaliks, holotype – link
- present on the fossil – "preserved in the fossil"?
- very primitive member – do you mean "basal"?
- "Very primitive" is what Pilgrim called it. I didn't want to assume it automatically meant basal.
- History and naming – Call this "History of discovery"? "History" alone can mean anything (evolutionary history, life history, etc). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, looks good to me! But I would write "Vishnufelis is a fossil genus of feline cat" (not putting "cat" in brackets) because "cat" can refer to Felidae in general, so "feline cat" makes sense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
