Wikipedia:Peer review/Vestigiality/archive1

Vestigial structure

This article just received Good article status and needs a peer review before it can reach the Featured Article standards. During its GA nomination the issue of using bullets in one of the sections was disputed during the good article process and more feedback on that issue would be much appreciated. Beyond that, this is the first article that I have carried to peer review, so however you normally review articles would be good.--SomeStranger^(t) 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • apparently
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, please strike this comment).

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• On the bullet issue: If you're sending this to FAC, I can tell you from experience that the bullets will need to go. I don't agree with that (bulleted prose, if done properly, is still prose), but that's just how it is. Personally, I like them. I think a few bullet points make it easier to skim and reduce the number of one- or two-sentence paragraphs (which, in my opinion, are no better). But the objections you got over them in GA and Peer Review are just a taste of what's to come at FAC, so you might as well give in and save yourself the trouble later.

As for the rest, FAC will likely want to see coverage of pretty much every vestigial appendage ever discovered on any animal. As it is, the six non-human examples give it "broad coverage", which suffices for Good Articles, but comprehensive coverage is required for Featured Articles. A list like that might be unreasonable to ask for, but that doesn't mean nobody will ask for it anyway. Kafziel 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How much is comprehensive? Are the really looking for a list of all structures known to man-kind? I have a list of possible structures that contains 50 or so more examples, but I hesitated to add them as it seemed repetetive (isn't that what "External links" are for?)--SomeStranger^(t) 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That was more of a heads-up. I don't think you need to put it in just yet, but be prepared for the probability that someone will demand it when it gets to FAC. Kafziel 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I will wait for a few more comments before changing the bullets to pure prose (although I think they are prose right now.) If enough peopel think it will be a problem, it might be best to just save the trouble later. Although, it might be interesting to see what those in FAC have to say.--SomeStranger^(t) 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Prose-ifying is probably firmly implanted in my head from FAC, and I have to agree with Kafziel that FACers are bound to comment on that. In bulleted form, the article reads: Wisdom teeth: Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars.... Wisdom teeth is repeated twice in a row, to not much of an effect. Besides, leaving half of the section (In humans) in prose and half in bullets is rather disruptive and inconsistent. Andy _t 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. I am going to go ahead and revert to the version where it was prose.--SomeStranger^(t) 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)