Wikipedia:Peer review/Animal/archive1

Animal

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been well developed but has not been able to meet the A-class or FA-class quality standards. There have been very few discussions and edits to the page recently. If it is reviewed, errors that prevent it from being nominated as an A-class article would be highlighted and soon added to the article. I would be happy to make the changes advised by the reviewer.

Thanks, PrathuCoder (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template.

Hello PrathuCoder. First some general advice: the FAC process is quite difficult to navigate. I would not nominate an article before you've written a couple of WP:good articles. Most Wikiprojects to not have a separate A-class.

I only have time to go over the article superficially. For articles like this, it's important to keep WP:make technical articles understandable in mind. Almost all readers should understand the lead of an article (WP:EXPLAINLEAD), and most readers should understand the body.

"and go through an ontogenetic stage in which their body consists of a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development." this is overly techincal and doesn't belong in the first paragraph. If you can avoid words like blastula and ontogenetic it may be okay elsewhere. In general, the lead contains too many long sentences, making readability poor.
The second paragraph is also too difficult. Most people will not know what a clade is, or a phylum.
The article stands at 3887 words. This is a perfectly fine length, but at WP:FAC, they seek articles that are comprehensive. For an article like this, I can imagine people expect at least 5000 words (or even 8000). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info @Femke. This is my first Peer Review for your information so I am not very familiar with the process. I have tried my best to make sentences shorter and make the terminology less technical in the lead. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a section on human threats to animals could be added, perhaps by summarizing parts of Holocene extinction Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1, I have added more information about the holocene extincition and conservation drives in the lead. I'll try to create a new section on that soon, but for now there is probably enough information in the lead. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added was uncited, and not quite accurate. Extinction is mostly caused by destruction of habitat, and to a lesser extent invasive species / climate change. Not from usage of animals. Note that all text added to the lead must first be added to the body of the article using high-quality reliable sources. For science, this means sources that comply with WP:SCIRS. A phylum is not always defines like you described either (could be genetic).

This is quite a difficult article to improve. I suggest you try working on less important articles first, get familiar with the GA process, before trying something as ambitious as this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Femke, could you provide a couple of references I could use to add the information given by you and some more? Sorry if I am asking too much since I don't know many sources I could use for this. PrathuCoder (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a biologist, but maybe folks at WP:Biology may be able to help you find sources. University-level instruction books supplemented by more up-to-date scientific reviews is what you want to aim for. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, You have reverted my edits, even though they were on your advice. Could you please let me know why? PrathuCoder (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my explanation above for my partial revert. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat destruction should certainly be wikilinked. But as Femke says this kind of general article is really hard - don’t think I could do it. @BhagyaMani has been very helpful on my occasional forays into Panthera pardus tulliana so perhaps he will have some advice Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@PrathuCoder: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Yep, that's fine. No objection from my side. PrathuCoder (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]