Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Cambrian explosion
After a previous peer review, I've now got a little bit of time on my hands, and am keen to prod this slowly towards featured article status. I'm going to fix the timeline soon (when I work out what's changed to break it!) and would welcome any other comments about the content and flow, in light of comments on the talk page.
Many thanks,
Verisimilus T 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
RJH
[edit]Nice work on an interesting topic. I have a few comments that I hope are of some use:
- The table of contents is too long. Many of the sections are only a single paragraph in length.
- Please use "—" rather than a dash to sub-divide sentences.
- The use of "We" in "Duration of the process" is not encyclopedic. (See WP:MoS#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one.)
- There are a number of very short paragraphs consisting of a single sentence. Can these be merged or expanded? There are also a number of overly-long paragraphs that need to be split up for the sake of less taxing reading.
- Several sections are lacking in citations. I look for on the order of one per paragraph for a well-documented FA. Anything expressing an opinion or something controversial probably needs a cite.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)