Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)
Hello,
I am listing this article on which I have been working on during the past year, with the goal of bringing it to the FA level. I am usually more active on the French Wikipedia instance and am less familiar on the exact criteria around here ; I would be very happy to get some feedback. A particular thing I am thinking about : I introduced a Data Analysis section, which is relevant to the article, but the article has grown quite a bit. I am thinking about splitting it, but I do not know how this works related to FA (does the splitted article count ?) ; in the case it is splitted, I would also link it from the LIGO page as it is relevant to both experiments.
Side note: there is one thing that I definitely intend to change, which is the diagram with the French labels ; I have prepared a replacement but am still getting feedback from other people on it, so you can ignore it for the time being.
Thanks, Thuiop (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to check if it's understandable for non-experts.
Thanks, Batmann (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article to be FL-class. All of the changes before I substitute them to the original article are in my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1. I appreciate someone who wants to review and give suggestions for the sake of improvement. Thanks, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: The article is very light on citations. The tables for surface area, volume, and inradius/circumradius/midradius, all lack inline citations and might be verging on original research, even though there is wording above to the effect that the info is taken from WolframAlpha. (This isn't to that I think the info wrong per se; however, for Wikipedia purposes, pretty much everything in articlespace needs to have a citation just as a matter of good practice.) In fact, the entire list article has no inline citations at all, just a list of two presumably-related books and several external links.
- I think you (@Dedhert.Jr) should use the refs you've already found to cite as much as you can. Then, for the rest of the tables, I'd guess that you might want to cite a bunch of WolframAlpha queries to cover the rest? Other than that there might not be much one can do in the way of referencing. Duckmather (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Update: I just added some citations to deal with the lead section. The body still desperately needs inline citations, which I'm not sure I can provide. Duckmather (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Duckmather It's all in my sandbox. I will implement it now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Update: I have removed the inradius/circumradius/midradius, which can only be found at a few smaller numbers of Johnson solids. I don't think we should add them, together with the graphs as well (see the talk article). Also, I removed the nets, which is already painful to draw them massively even though we do have a source. I do think that journals and books are more reliable rather than WolframAlpha. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Duckmather It's already over one week. Are there any comments? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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: 8 November 2023, 11:56 UTC
- Last edit: 14 January 2024, 17:01 UTC
- Previous peer review
I've listed this article for peer review (17 years after the first) because though I am not an expert in mathematics, I feel Wiles’ article has become high-quality enough in the intervening years to receive an upgrade, or more importantly, an assessment of what needs to be fixed to make it featured status; I should note his influence on mathematics is powerful enough to perhaps warrant “today’s featured article” status for 19 September 2024, the 30th anniversary of his key insight that led to his correction of his greatest proof, so consider this the start of a yearlong campaign to improve the article to featured status.
Thanks, Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Jarrod Baniqued: If you are interested in making it a featured article, a good first step is to bring it to WP:GA. Here's some comments to address before you nominate it:
- I don't think the block quote of the Royal Society certificate is needed, as it raises copyright concerns.
- Consider using IA Bot to archive the sources.
- Ref 9: ensure that there is more citation information than the url.
- Expand the lede so that it is a summary of the article. Each section with a level 2 heading should have information included in the article.
Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Z1720: Thank you very much for the insights. I will carry them out sometime in the next week. Please bring an editor with a second opinion, too, preferably with suggestions on how to get started. My initial idea is to, for lack of a better word, rephrase parts of the TV Tropes Useful Notes article on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have implemented this idea. I used IABot, but apparently due to some fudging with user permissions, it hasn’t directly edited the citations. Someone else will have to use IABot on the article.
- I also have written a rudimentary lede, though I have yet to figure out how to implement the last recommendation for sections. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to see your campaign to make this a featured article come to fruition. Here's some comments:
- The first thing that jumps out to me is that this article does not cover much apart from Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem; it needs expansion on his career before and after this. This would also involve splitting the current section into multiple sections.
- For example, there's no information on any of his doctoral students apart from Richard Taylor beyond the infobox.
- The "Awards and honours" section is currently just a couple of sentences and then a bulleted list; it needs to be written in proper prose.
- This is a matter of personal preference really, but I wouldn't use the current way Singh's book is cited. Instead, I'd use ((sfn)) or ((harvnb)) to cite pages from books and then have a single reference to the book below that. See the Oppenheimer article for a good example of this.
- Ensure the references are satisfactory, for example.
- All authors with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked using |author-link
- All publications with a Wikipedia article are wikilinked
- All relevant sources have an access date
- Reliable (famous-mathematicians.com and TV Tropes are not reliable sources)
Hope this helps! Sgubaldo (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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: 22 August 2023, 05:14 UTC
- Last edit: 27 December 2023, 03:53 UTC
Fact Checks
Another smaller article about an obscure Siwalik genus, but this time it's a barbourofelid rather than a felid- or is it? As before, I'm hoping that it is good enough for B-class even if it can't go to GAN. Additional note: the major sources are freely available online, so I'd appreciate someone checking my Description section against what the papers say- I'm still shaky on making it readable yet comprehensive. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- machaerodont – link/explain at first mention?
- Sivasmilus is a fossil genus of barbourofelid – does it make sense to add ("false saber-toothed cat") here for readers who do not know what a barbourofelid is, and just want to know what the article is about?
- I dislike the name, but it's probably useful to casual readers. Done.
- "mental crest", "foramina", parastyle: link at first mention
- In 2018 a study noted that the mandible fragment seemed to fit the holotype of Sivaelurus (a near-complete right maxilla, or upper jaw bone) quite well – A mysterious statement which is open to speculation. But what can we do if the authors are not more clear.
- Yeah, that was basically all they said.
- situated above the cheek teeth, – What does that mean, "above"? And why cheek teeth if you already used "premolar"?
- Changed to situated above the level of the premolars to reflect what the source said.
- a very distinct series of very fine serrations. – In most cases, "very" does not really add anything and can usually be removed.
- a strong metastyle behind the principal cusp, and room for a parastyle in front of it – In front of what?
- In front of the principal cusp. Clarified.
- I can't see any further issues. Nicely done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Responded to some, still working on others. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sorry for the long wait, I responded to and made the appropriate changes to the last two outstanding points. Thank you, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Jens Lallensack:, by the by. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Looks good! I changed to "B"-class, that WikiprojectMammals B-class checklist does again not work, you would need to fix that yourself (I will never understand those B-class checklists it seems). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The Project-Independent Quality Assessment guys disabled use of B-clas checklists in banners, alas. But thank you for the review and reassessment! SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Ah I see, that simplifies things. And sure, you are welcome! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A short, but hopefully comprehensive, article about a fossil cat species from Poland. It's original description has the distinction of being freely available online, which just makes it stranger that it's hardly been mentioned since it was described. As before, I am most concerned about the Description and Paleoecology sections. Thanks for any help, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Węże 1 – Specify where in Poland this is?
- The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus – you need "mandibular ramus", since some other bones also have rami.
- The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus: the front part of the ramus – Why not simply "The holotype and only specimen is the front part of a left mandibular ramus"?
- fellow prehistoric feline – do you mean "contemporary"?
- five other carnivorans are known from Węże 1 – would help to also state the groups to which they belong.
- The lead could be longer, it is supposed to summarize the entire article.
- Again, this is all I found for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I believe I have made all of the requested changes. Thank you! SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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[reply]
- "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)Reply[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[reply]
