Talk:Erratus

Quote placement

"To quote a paper ¨with unique trunk appendages formed of lateral anomalocaridid-type flaps and ventral subconical endopods. These appendages represent an intermediate stage of biramous limb evolution.[1]" I'm having trouble seeing how these sentences fit with each other and with the article as a whole. What are you quoting the paper to support or describe? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK yeah I can see that, I got rid of it and re-added it to a more clear part of the article.

Is this article about the genus Erratus or the species Erratus sperare. If it is about the genus, the etymology of the specific epithet doesn't belong in the opening sentence. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I took it out of the intro. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erratus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wretchskull (talk · contribs) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a highly technical article that isn't accessible to normal readers; work will be needed on prose.

Lede

• Link arthropod and nektonic.
• The lede could probably be expanded considering the amount of info in the body.

History of study

• Link carapace and euarthropod.
• Citations come after punctuation; quotation marks included.

Classification

• The last sentence is unreferenced.
• Add a comma after "however".

Paleoecology

• Link Cambrian period and fauna.

General

• Is there any info on the etymology of "Erratus sperare"?

@Fossiladder13: Before I continue the review, I'll give you time to perhaps simplify the prose for accessibility, and to implement this source that was published in February 8th. Wretchskull (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Ok I edited it a bit, is there anything else that could be improved?.

Lede

• Arthropod is linked twice in the lede.
• Is there a reason why the first pararaph has references but the second one doesn't? Consistency is needed; either add refs to the second paragraph or, preferably, remove refs from the lede and make sure they're incorporated in the body.

History of study

"[...] biramous limb evolution.[3]" --> "[...] biramous limb evolution."[3]

References

• No copyvio found.
• Spotchecks:
  • Ref 2 doesn't support that "Erratus on the other hand has a set of primitive legs". It may sure be phylogenetically primitive, but that isn't stated by the source. Am I missing something?
  • Why does ref 6 have a url to the site as a separate link rather than being clickable through the title?
  • I didn't find any other issues.

@Fossiladder13: Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull okay I’ve gotten the problems you listed covered, however reference six I believe either doesn’t work that way, or the person who added it got directly from the site. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the "Paleoecology" section, the following is stated: "One of the most important creatures from the site is Myllokunmingia, an early chordate that might be one of the oldest agnathans (jawless fish.) The site also preserves more enigmatic fauna, like Yunnanozoon lividum, which might be a very early hemichordate or chordate, Eldonia has been suggested to have been a holothurian, siphonophoran, or other cnidarian, and Dinomischus, a very rare stalked animal that could be an echinoderm." What does any of this have to do with the article? This information is WP:UNDUE and should instead be incorporated in the article Chengjiang Biota.
• If everything mentioned in the lede already exists in the body, remove the references from the lede. I also see that there are references being used in the lede that aren't being used in the body.
• There is no mention of who and when Erratus sperare in the lede.
• The language is still far too technical in many locations.

@Fossiladder13: I'm sorry, but there are just far too many problems with this article to be a GA at the moment. I want you to address these points and keep your head up; I know it is frustrating for ones GAN to fail, but you'll learn a lot about the process. It's also important to pay close attention to the GAN criteria at WP:GAC. My advice is that you re-nominate the article after a few weeks, during which you can address the issues (something I can help you with) and learn how GAN's usually unfold, which you can see at WP:GAN (preferably the "Biology and medicine section", which I assume is your field of expertise). Good luck! Wretchskull (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok got it Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A diagram reconstruction of Erratus sperare

• ... that Erratus (pictured) was the first arthropod to evolve legs over 520 million years ago? Source: https://scitechdaily.com/new-missing-link-fossil-reveals-origin-of-arthropod-breathing-system/
• ALT1: ... that Erratus (pictured) was one of the earliest known arthropods to show the origins of lungs and limbs in the group? Source: https://scitechdaily.com/new-missing-link-fossil-reveals-origin-of-arthropod-breathing-system/

• ALT2: ... that the Early Cambrian aged Maotianshan Shales have produced many fossils such as the primative arthropod Erratus (pictured)? Source: https://scitechdaily.com/new-missing-link-fossil-reveals-origin-of-arthropod-breathing-system/

Created by Fossiladder13 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

• New and long enough, QPQ exempt (QPQ Check results), as the nominator has less than five DYK credits, all non-lead ¶ with citations, a copyvio check reveals no problems, hook content is interesting. An immediate problem is that all of the hook content is not present in the article. Nowhere in the article does it state that the Erratus was the first arthropod to evolve legs. This notion is also not directly mentioned in the source provided atop. Rather, the source alludes to the notion, stating, "Erratus sperare provides the missing link between arthropods that used such specialized flaps and arthropods with biramous limbs. It has both legs and flaps." However, the source does not directly state that it was the first to evolve legs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Seconding North America's comment and wanted to elaborate a bit. One issue with the whole notion of "first lifeform to evolve" statements are that they're never entirely accurate. They may be the earliest that we know of at the moment, but this is simply due to limitations on the ever-expanding nature of knowledge. Any statement like "the first x to do y" is going to fall flat with time (remember Archaeopteryx? Probably wasn't the first bird after new discoveries emerged), so its safest (if the hook source is accurate in the first place) to replace "first" with "earliest known". Ornithoptera (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Ok how does it look now Ornithoptera?. This is Fossiladder asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossiladder13 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging Ornithoptera, since prior ping won't have gone through without a sig. Also pinging original reviewer North America1000. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, sorry, I wasn't meaning to review the DYK nomination but was simply making some further comments on the issue. I think the review went to Northamerica1000 so reviewing the DYK was redundant if I was to. I apologize for the misunderstanding though. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed; the previous reviewer will not be returning, though they believe the hook issue remains. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• (Not a review) Comment After reading the article, I sadly must conclude that I don't understand the topic well enough to gauge hook accuracy. However, I wanted to point out that sources 3 and 4 in the article share a lot of content and seem to be directly related. Since these sources are not that important to the article it's no big deal, but would be cleaner to just have one of them.

And in order to get this through at some point, I'd suggest to explore other hooks. @Fossiladder13: Can you think of any alternate hooks? Brainstorming might yield something fresh that others can more easily agree upon. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Re Alt 1, what do the words "in the group" add that isn't understood by deleting them? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1a ... that Erratus (pictured) was one of the earliest known arthropods to show the origins of lungs and limbs?

• Re Alt 2, "exquisite fossils" is an opinion, not mentioned (let alone cited) in the article. Wikipedia does not have opinions. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Approve Alt1a. --evrik ^(talk) 18:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Affinity as Isoxyid

@Fossiladder13 and @Hemiauchenia, I noticed that supplementary material (6) of Tuzoia redescription[1] coded that Erratus as Isoxyidae. Should we follow this? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to Sure, If everything checks out. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose changing it. Erratus lacks key diagnostic characteristics of Isoxyids, like spined frontal appendages. Given that this wasn't even mentioned in the actual text of the paper, I think its undue to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)