Kaikaifilu edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because my attempt for the GA on this animal have failed. So, after having expanded out the basic article (which was already well developed by Lythronaxargestes), I am convinced that the article still has potential to be featured. But before that, I would like to see how other users who are more expert than me on the subject can help me to correct these defects, and/or to add interesting things.
Thanks, Amirani1746 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the GA failed due to a combination of two factors: (1) The reviewer is not familiar with articles from this project and basic palaeontological terminology. I would still take most of their feedback into account, save for the ones that are clearly based on misinterpretations of the text. (2) The article is genuinely jargony, and the recent expansions don't appear to have improved upon my 2016 prose in this regard. There are large swathes of the text under Description that even a technically competent reader would struggle to follow. Wrt mosasaur articles, Mosasaurus is the gold standard for what the prose should look like. I would advise a round of revisions following the example of Mosasaurus before seeking further feedback. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lythronaxargestes sorry for the late, but now, what do you think of the actual state of the article ? Amirani1746 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)