Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review

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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

Kronosaurus

While waiting for Kronosaurus to be formally diagnosed using a proposed neotype specimen, I have decided to considerably expand the article. The use of the 2009 McHenry's thesis was very useful to me. I set myself the objective of proposing this article for proofreading so that it reaches the GA level, given that it is a fairly emblematic taxon of pliosaurs. If a redescription is published later, I could possibly upgrade it to FA level.

Thanks, Amirani1746 (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Wiles

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because 1) the last one was carried out in 2006, 2) the article seems to have good enough sourcing to be fleshed out; the only macro-level issue is that the early life section is a bit thin; and 3) this article would be excellent to use as TFA on the 19th of September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his grand insight.

Thanks, Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for submitting this for peer review.

1. Is there a reason why this sentence:

Wiles was born in Cambridge to theologian Maurice Frank Wiles and his wife Patricia.

Refers to his mother as "his wife Patricia" and not "Patricia Wiles"?

2.

After moving to Oxford and graduating from there in 1974, he worked on unifying Galois representations, elliptic curves and modular forms, starting with Barry Mazur's generalizations of Iwasawa theory. In the early 1980s, Wiles moved to Princeton University from Cambridge and worked on...

Could we mention more clearly that he was at Cambridge for a few years? The career and research section also might mention that John H. Coates was his doctoral advisor.

3. The phrasing "He trusts the letters" is a bit odd to me.

4. This sentence is run-on and should be split into 2-3 separate sentences:

Starting by assuming that the theorem was incorrect, Wiles then contradicted the Taniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture as formulated under that assumption, with Ribet's theorem (which stated that if n were a prime number, no such elliptic curve could have a modular form, so no odd prime counterexample to Fermat's equation could exist), and Wiles also proved that the conjecture applied to the special case known as the semistable elliptic curves to which Fermat's equation was tied; in other words, Wiles had found that the Taniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture was true in the case of Fermat's equation, and Ribet's finding, that the conjecture holding for semistable elliptic curves could mean Fermat's Last Theorem is true, prevailed, thus proving Fermat's Last Theorem.

5. The Awards and honours section has inconsistent punctuation.

6. Perhaps the section about Wiles' legacy might include some mention of his doctoral students? I'm not sure about this though, just a suggestion.

7. This needs better sourcing:

In August 1993, it was discovered that the proof contained a flaw in several areas, related to properties of the Selmer group and use of a tool called an Euler system.<FOOTNOTE> Wiles tried and failed for over a year to repair his proof. According to Wiles, the crucial idea for circumventing—rather than closing—this area came to him on 19 September 1994, when he was on the verge of giving up. According to Eric W. Weisstein, the circumvention involved "replacing elliptic curves with Galois representations, reducing the problem to a class number formula, solving that problem, and tying up loose ends", all using Iwasawa theory to fix "results from Matthias Flach based on ideas from Victor Kolyvagin", and letting Iwasawa's and Flach's approaches strengthen each other.<THREE FOOTNOTES>

More citations needed: there are not enough footnotes here and of the four that are, three are to Wolfram MathWorld, which is tertiary and not that reliable, and one is to TV tropes for some reason that escapes me.

8. I've added a few citation neededs elsewhere.

Good luck with this article! I hope you can get it to be TFA on Sep 19th. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Plant micro-reserve

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to GAN soon. I have worked extensively on plant species articles, but this is my first on a broader topic in the field. I would appreciate input on broadness, readability, and general manual of style. I do intend to eventually go for FAC with it, so anything beyond GA criteria is also more than welcome. Happy to peer review an article of yours in exchange! Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Rhea (moon)

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

Algebra

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, 17:05 UTC

Last edit: 28 July 2024, 15:18 UTC

Nodoroc

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)

Comments from Z1720

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)

Fact Checks

Vishnufelis

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)

• 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.
  • Done
• based on the first felid cranial material found in Asia – write "of a fossil cat"? The "fossil" seems necessary.
  • Done
• 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"?
  • Done
• 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
  • Done
• present on the fossil – "preserved in the fossil"?
  • Done
• 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)
  • "History and naming" is the semi-standard name I've been using for that first section across fossil felid articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
  • To my knowledge, feline is widely considered a synonym for cat in English, so that reads as redundant. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Not according to our articles, though, see Felidae. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)