Talk:Ciechocinek Formation/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has multiple issues and is nowhere close to GA standard.
 * It does not meed GA criterium 1 "well written". For example, the second sentence of the lead has four issues in seven words: "It's mostly know by its incredible entomofauna". 1) It's is colloquial (It is), 2) know -> known, 3) "incredible", see WP:Words to watch, 4) technical terms like entomofauna need to be linked or, better, explained. The rest of the article does not look any better.
 * There appears to be a good degree of WP:Synth, if not WP:OR. For example, the very first sentence is: The clay pits of Dobbertin have been expoited in the past, being the most famous being the Schwinzer Hellberg clay pit.[12] – but the source does not indicate that this pit is part of the formation. Further, presenting this pit first suggests it is the oldest clay pit that was in operation for this unit, for which there is no source at all.
 * Bias: It has a strong focus on paleontology, and it seems that the "Schwinzer Hellberg clay pit" of the first sentence was selected because of its paleontological importance. I somehow doubt we can discuss it in this depth while not being biased / select arbitrary information.
 * Structure: There is excessive wall of text, this should be split up into multiple shorter paragraphs. I also don't know why paleoflora is discussed under "Paleoenvironment" while paleofauna is a section of its own. Further, there is a extremely long list, which is that long because of the species lists. However, there is already the subarticle Paleobiota of the Ciechocinek Formation for the same information, no need to repeat it here?
 * Excessive information in many places, also check WP:TERSE.
 * Some info in the lead is not repeated in the body (e.g., Emausaurus). And we don't have citations in the lead.
 * Furthermore, a lot of the content is based on primary sources (see WP:primary). This is OK when no secondary source is available, but becomes a problem if you present speculative claims of primary research as facts. Instead, in such cases, use author contribution (author xx and colleagues, in 2011, argued that …). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to stop here and quickfail, unfortunately, but please let me know if you have questions or need additional hints to improve the article. I would recommend WP:Peer Review after a thorough rework of this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)