User:Eyeball7878/Macrofossil/Diderotsevenbillion Peer Review

General info
Eyeball7878
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Eyeball7878/Macrofossil
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Macrofossil

Lead
I think I understand your goal with the sentence that you've added to the lead, and I agree that it's important to highlight the variety of macrofossils in the lead. That said, I think that the sentence is vague enough that it's not clear what it's adding - a little more detail or explicit reference to the types of things you're talking about would be helpful to the reader. Along the same lines, the 'preserved organic remains' definition does not include things like tracks / impressions - it might be worth circling back to the definition given in the Fossil article.

Content & Organization
You've added a lot of really good content and made this a way more comprehensive article! Including the history of the term / concept is very valuable, and it pairs nicely with the addition of the 'modern study' section. The types section is also a valuable addition. I do have some feedback that I think could strengthen your additions to the article.

In the "Historical Background" section, I would combine the three subsections into a single more coherent narrative. It would be useful to provide more information about why and in what context the term macrofossil was coined, and when making a distinction between micro/macrofossils became necessary.

The "Modern Study" section focuses entirely on plant macrofossils, and the specific way we are using them in class. This type of research makes up a very small fraction of modern study of macrofossils, so it's not really appropriate to discuss it exclusively in the section on the modern study of macrofossils. It might be best to remove this section, and instead address the ways in which macrofossils are used in the 'Varieties' section in greater detail.

The 'Collection and Preservation' section should probably be removed - the variety of macrofossils that exist is too great for a section of this kind to be meaningful. The source you're pulling from seems to be referring to specific types of fossils from a specific place. The "should" language is not appropriate for wikipedia.

Below, I'll list some line-level edits for typos, grammar, clarity, and precision:

The scare quotes around "museum quality" indicate that a different phrase should probably be used.

There are some grammar issues with this sentence: "The origins of the term Macrofossil dates back to 1937 and was first used by G.D Hanna a US paleontologist and malacologist." Maybe try something like "The term macrofossil was coined in 1937 by American paleontologist and malacologist G.D. Hanna."

The word "reconstruct" is used in the "Scientific Thought" and "Vertebrate Macrofossils" subsections. It would be good to be more specific about the type of understanding that is achieved with these fossils - 'reconstruct' makes it sound like you're actually trying to put the animal back together.

"George" -> "Georges"

What were the "changing views" that you reference, and how did macrofossils support them?

"School of thought" -> discipline

"The study of these fossils is called Paleontology." Paleontology encompasses much more than just vertebrate macrofossils.

"They are best preserved in sandstone." I don't think this is necessarily true. I see where it says this in the Trace fossil article, but the source is from the sixties and is only discussing marine fossils.

Things that should/could have links to other wikipedia pages: G. D. Hanna; extinct; pollen microfossils; ichnology.

Tone and Balance
Other than the "should" in the "Collection and Preservation" section, I think that the tone and balance of your additions are excellent.

Sources and References
The sources you've added seem fairly strong. I would consider citing the work in which Hanna coined the term macrofossil. Citations 1, 4, 5, and 12 look like they are broken/incomplete. Citation 12 showing the wrong year, so you should fix that and double check all of them.

Images and Media
You haven't added any images/media, and the ones in the existing article seem fairly strong. I don't think work is required here.

Overall Impressions
I think that you have added a lot of really valuable content, and that the draft you've written is an improvement on the current article. That said, I do think that there's room for revision and cleanup, as I've outlined above. Globally, I think it's worth considering what distinguishes this article from the Fossil article - why do macrofossils need their own article? To me, it's probably most important to highlight the history of the term, and the research contexts in which it's commonly used (since most macrofossil researchers just call them fossils). I hope some of this feedback was useful. Strong work overall!