Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tullimonstrum/archive1

Tullimonstrum

 * Nominator(s): Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about...Tullimonstrum, an enigmatic bilaterian animal from the Mazon creek fossil beds of northern Illinois. It has stumped paleontologists for over 50 years on its taxonomy. Some suggestions include, Conodonts, an Echinoderm, a fish, and an sea squirt larvae. The creature comes from the late Pennsylvanian of the Carboniferous period, around 307 million years ago. It is so far only known from the Mazon creek sites, so it is a very unique organism. I would like to thank anyone who can help give feedback. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * File:Tullimonstrum recon.png — looks sketchy (both from a copyright and informational perspective) coming from a vanished user. I would take it out as there's probably no way to find out where the information contained in this image comes from or why it's trustworthy.
 * File:Tullimonstrum.png — what is the source for this image?
 * File:Tullimonstrum gregarium (obsolete reconstruction).jpg —marked as not factually accurate on Commons
 * Infobox is sandwiching with the first image (contrary to MOS:IMAGES), but that issue could probably be fixed if you expanded the lead to 2 paragraphs, which you should probably do anyway.
 * Welcome to FAC! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've gotten rid of the images that were sketchy or inarticulate, and also tried to fix the sandwiching issue.  Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * what should I do next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Image review is a pass. I would still advise expanding the lead to make sure it covers the main points in the body. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe, ok I have expanded the lead, how does it look. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Definite improvement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What could I change next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe did you get my ping Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - at a glance, this seems to be a premature nomination, the nominator does not seem to be a main editor of the article, and it is very short for such a controversial subject. I would suggest expanding it after a thorough review of the literature, getting it WP:peer reviewed and nominated for WP:Good article before ending up here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @FunkMonk Thank you for the advice, I will try to get a good article review started tomorrow. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Best would be peer review first, since again, most of the text here seems to have been written by other editors. I think it needs serous content expansion before going anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok @FunkMonk, Thanks again, I am currently a little busy, so I will try to get a peer edit going soon. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal
Recusing to review. I agree with most of the above and suggest that the nominator withdraw this to work it up to FAC standard. Among other things: Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I note two grammatical errors in "it seems this creature was free swimming predator that hunted in the oceans water column."
 * There are five single sentence paragraphs.