Wikipedia:Peer review/Megalodon/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to FA status, but this article attained GA status back in 2008 (meaning I didn't write a bulk of it). I'm worried about referencing issues mainly because of that, I need to make sure that the text says what the refs say
Thanks, User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Half of the citations seem to be Fossilworks.com. Wouldn't it be better to directly use the sources the website cites? Or at least condense it somehow. "Monster Shark" also doesn't seem to be a reliable source, most of such TV shows are overly exaggerated. "theworldslargestsharksjaw.com." and "elasmo-research.com." also seems like dubious sources, and that is just at a glance. In general, most of such sources should be replaced with academic, peer-reviewed sources, not pop-science articles and TV-shows. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- That would be a lot of refs to change considering all the fossilwork refs are just for the table. "Monster Shark" is by NatGeo so I'd say it's pretty reliable, and there's nothing wrong with citing news articles. The biggest difference between news articles and peer-reviewed studies (that they no doubt cite) is that the average reader will be able to comprehend what the news article is saying. Also the journals they cite don't really have any free pdf's or anything, so they're not very accessible. If they do I've tried to replace them as best I can (but there's always a chance I missed a couple). theworldslargestsharksjaw.com is written by the Bertucci family (which is what is being discussed in the text). elasmo-research.com is backed by ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research, and all the writers are biologists, so it checks out for me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think you could replace all those distracting links by simply using this one[1], which links to all those pages anyway. As for the documentary, I'm pretty sure it won't fly at FAC, so it's probably a good idea to find replacements for it before. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did the fossilworks thing (good idea by the way)
but I'm still holding onto the NatGeo documentary for nowUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)- It took a while but I replaced the NatGeo ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I did the fossilworks thing (good idea by the way)
- I think you could replace all those distracting links by simply using this one[1], which links to all those pages anyway. As for the documentary, I'm pretty sure it won't fly at FAC, so it's probably a good idea to find replacements for it before. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- That would be a lot of refs to change considering all the fossilwork refs are just for the table. "Monster Shark" is by NatGeo so I'd say it's pretty reliable, and there's nothing wrong with citing news articles. The biggest difference between news articles and peer-reviewed studies (that they no doubt cite) is that the average reader will be able to comprehend what the news article is saying. Also the journals they cite don't really have any free pdf's or anything, so they're not very accessible. If they do I've tried to replace them as best I can (but there's always a chance I missed a couple). theworldslargestsharksjaw.com is written by the Bertucci family (which is what is being discussed in the text). elasmo-research.com is backed by ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research, and all the writers are biologists, so it checks out for me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some other things, you should explain in the caption of the size comparison why Megalodon is shown twice. Also, it may be good to reverse the alignment of the Livyatan skull image and the megalodon chasing whales, since it is preferred that subjects of images face the text. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Do any of the scientific sources actually use the term "missing link"? If not, it should be removed, as the term is frowned upon by scientists today. If it is only used in some pop-science article, it should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just removed it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)