Wikipedia:Peer review/Spriggina/archive1

Spriggina

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Expanded as part of WP:CEX – ideas for further improvement requested. Target is to reach A/GA status. Smith609  Talk  12:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article, here are some suggestions for getting it to GA: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, etc. I note that Ediacara biota is a FA and may be useful as a model.
 * The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD, to at least two paragraphs or perhaps three. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so more of Morphology could be in the lead.
 * I would give both English and metric units, for cm for example – convert may be useful
 * The article has many one or two sentence paragraphs, which should be combined with others, or expanded if possible. As is they break up they flow of the article.
 * Provide context for the reader – for example, where are these fossils found? Australia?
 * A few places need refs, such as Spriggina possessed a tough, though uncalcified, body, evident from the fossils' preservation: always as a mould in the lower surface of the fossiliferous bed. or the fact that it is named for Reg Sprigg. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase – so remove the space in bears some similarity to the living polychaete worm Tomopteris, [7] but its lack of chaetae ...
 * It seems like there are several places that could be expanded – more details on why it was thought to be a worm, or explain in more detail what Spriggina ovata and Spriggia wadea are?
 * Refs need some work – all caps for author in 1 and 12 look odd – copy and paste perhaps?
 * No first name for authors of refs 2 and 8? No author at all for Ref 3 or ref 5 (broken template there)?
 * Ref 9 is just a link – Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Please use my examples as just that – these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.


 * Many thanks for your comments. I've made a start on them and will continue as time permits! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  09:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)