Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review

		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!

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content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date.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

---

Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)

Cube

I am attending to a request to peer review, alongside nominating a DYK's hook for featuring on the main page, for improvement according to WP:FACR. Hopefully, this article will become a potential for FA. Any feedbacks would be appreciated.

Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Dedhert.Jr! I've added this to the FAC peer review sidebar to increase its visibility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It's you again, and thanks for the sidebar. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

This is a really nice presentation. So many math articles dive head-first into technical details that I'm lost before I get to the end of the first sentence. I'm up to Relation to the spheres right now, and still following every word, so that's great, and a great example of WP:MTAU. For context, I was an engineering major in school, so a decent math background, but not my main thing. And I got a head-start on polyhedra by playing lots of D&D in high school :-)

I'm up to Applications now and the reading is getting a little slower, but that's good. Easy at the start, diving deeper into technical esoterica as the article progresses. As it should be.

• As a general comment, you do a pretty good job of explaining technical terms, but there's a few more which could use a short in-line definition: cubiod, dihedral, interior angle, Euler characteristic, orthogonal, parallelepiped, congruent, rhomoohedron, trigonal trapezohedron, centroid, isometries, dual (and in dual polyhedron), tesseract, crown graph, bipartite Kneser graph. I'm going to assume that anybody reading this will not have any problem with edges, vertices, faces, polyhedron, or platonic solid.

• I had never heard of the Prince Rupert's cube, but I had heard of the Prince Rupert's Drop, which I see are named after the same person. Might be worth dropping that little bit of coolness into the article.
• doubling the cube ... compass and straightedge ... Ancient mathematicians could not solve this problem until the French mathematician Pierre Wantzel proved it was impossible in 1837 But it is possible with origami, which is another bit of coolness you could drop in here. But more to the point, this is worded strangely. They still couldn't solve it after 1837, but at least then they knew why.
• five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four are cut diagonally make the gramatical constructions, ahem, conguent: "five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four cut diagonally"
• (image caption) A six-sided dice Ugh. "Dice" is plural. The singular is "die"
• Not sure you need to mention this, but Alamo not only sits on a vertix, it spins around its vertical axis. That was my old stomping grounds, and I have indeed spun it. It takes a few people; the bearings aren't very good. But read WP:POPCULTURE and consider how much of this section you really need.
• Pyrite is an example of a mineral with a commonly cubic shape Maybe use common table salt as a more familiar example?

That about does it for me. I don't think this will have any problem at WP:FAC but you should enlist somebody with a stronger math background than me to take a look at it. I'm thinking David Eppstein would be a good possibility. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

PS, please ping me when this is at DYK. RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see it is already. RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith. I think I have completed most of suggestions. You might want to read it by yourself about my writing that is somewhat a little bit of overdetailed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Megalneusaurus

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

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 5 July 2025, 08:58 UTC

Last edit: 23 July 2025, 17:58 UTC

Neanderthal

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

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 19 June 2025, 01:55 UTC

Last edit: 1 July 2025, 01:37 UTC