This page has been retired

The successor of this initiative is the Palaeo Article workshop, a place for collaborative article editing, and open for submissions!

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 3.

Welcome to the peer review page of the WikiProject Palaeontology, which is a way to receive feedback on paleontology-related articles.

This review was initiated to improve the communication and collaboration within the WikiProject Palaeontology. In contrast to WP:Peer Review, where ready-made articles may be submitted to prepare them for the high standards required at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, we here focus on short content reviews ("Fact Checks") without paying too much attention to stylistic details.

For authors:

Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality may be submitted. This includes works in progress, in which case guidance in the process of writing may be provided. At the other extreme, this also includes recognised content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date. Although direct collaborative editing on listed articles is encouraged, the nominator is expected to address upcoming issues.

Reviews will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time.

For reviewers:

Single drive-by comments are encouraged. Since this review does not lead to any kind of article approval, complete reviews are not required.

Fact Checks

Fact checks are relatively quick reviews that are focused on article content. They are mainly used to assess the article's accuracy, and can be applied to any article, regardless of quality or length. To get an article fact-checked, click the button below to create a new section. Please indicate if you would, in addition, also like to receive critique on style, prose, layout and comprehensiveness.

Click here to submit an article for a fact check

Full Peer Review

Full peer reviews are longer and more rigorous, and also involve critique on style, prose, and layout. These are useful for getting an expanded article into shape for WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and are more likely to attract non-expert reviewers who may check comprehensibility. For this type of review, please go to WP:PR and follow the instructions there. The review, together with other Natural Sciences reviews, will be automatically transcluded to this page.

Go to WP:PR