Wikipedia:Peer review/Quinkana/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has progressed beyond a Stub class article and would like it to be classified. I welcome any suggestions for improvement or edits.
Thanks, Candecide (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel
[edit]The expansion looks pretty good so far. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the article quality ratings, but I can provide some suggestions for further improvements. I'll start with some more general stuff:
- While WP:PR is a good system, one of its downsides is that many editors find it not to be especially visible. One way to get around this is to post a brief message at the paleontology Wikiproject's talk page to let other editors know about the review. Additionally, the paleontology project has an internal peer review system for quicker "fact check"-oriented reviews (although the downside is that it won't attract editors who don't specialize in paleontology-related articles).
- We usually put images of fossils in the taxobox if they're available.
- The lead right now is quite long - I'd try to trim it down to two or three paragraphs. We also usually avoid putting citations in the lead, as the lead shouldn't introduce any information that isn't later stated in the article.
- It should be stated where the cladogram comes from (immediately before it, something like "The following cladogram follows Author, Year." should be said).
- Perhaps an image of a related genus could be put in the taxonomy section?
- A section on the environment that it lived in a contemporaneous animals (usually entitled "Pal(a)eoenvironment" or "Pal(a)eoecology") should be added if possible. I see that there's already a little bit on this at the end of paleobiology.
- I see that frequent mentions are made to "a study" or "studies". Where possible, it should be specified by who and when, for example "a study by Author, Year" assuming the information isn't non-controversial (i.e. non-contested information on osteology, bone measurements, where specimens were found).
- One thing to remember is that subjects should only be linked on their first mention. There's a handy script that allows one to find duplinks (short for "duplicated links") though I can't remember too much about setting it up (I think that FunkMonk, who told me about it in the first place, might know more).
- Yep, here's the script:[1] Also, a term can be linked both at first mention in the intro and first time in the articule body. FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully these comments are helpful. I'll see if I can conduct a more thorough review over the coming days. Sorry that I can't say too much about where the article fits on the quality scale, other than that it's virtually certainly no longer a stub. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)