Wikipedia:Peer review/Timeline of plesiosaur research/archive1

Timeline of plesiosaur research
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

... I'd like to get this up to Featured List status eventually and would like general feedback before I nominate it. Also, I plan on creating more timelines of the history of various paleontology subfields and would like to have feedback before I do to start off on the right foot.

Thanks, Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * It would be helpful to state the period when the plesiosaurs lived in the first para.
 * The second para switches back and forth between locomotion and birth. I think it would be better to split it into one para on each, finishing with current opionion.
 * I think you need to explain that plesiosaur is a order and say a few words about its number of genuses and species.
 * You give the date the first plesiosaur species was named, but not the order itself.
 * drew a piece called "Duria Antiquior" - piece seems an odd word to use here.
 * Sir Richard Owen formally named the pliosaurs. A few words explaining that they are a suborder would be helpful.
 * The "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness monster was hoaxed. I don't think that you can use hoax as a verb without an object. Perhaps "The hoax "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness monster was published."
 * Michael Taylor published a paper concluding that plesiosaurs would have been capable of moving on land after all - I would leave out 'after all'.
 * Robinson publishes follow up research to her previous publication on plesiosaur locomotion.[9] This second paper notably concluded that plesiosaurs were incapable of leaving the water. You need to be consistent on tense - published not publishes. Also notably may be criticised as POV.
 * Tarsitano and Riess published a paper harshly critical of Robsinson's previous work on plesiosaur locomotion - typo in name and word previous is superfluous.
 * Note: the usual convention is that someone is first mentioned with their full name and thereafter with their surname only.
 * Long[disambiguation needed] - you need to check this.
 * The number of red links seems too high. If I remember correctly an FL should have minimal red links.
 * I am not an expert on citations but your style looks wrong to me. The author usually comes first and I do not think chapters are needed when a book is all by the same author. I would just have e.g. Ellis (2003), page 3.
 * A good article but I think it needs more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)