Talk:Eusarcana

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Seems the eurypterid factory is in full force! Will review this soon. Have you considered trying to nominate your best eurypterid article for FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Back on track :) I have considered it but I would like to have a better idea of what FAC means first, getting acquinted with the criteria and looking at some past reviews and such. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, in my experience the main hurdle at FAC compared to GAN is much greater attention to citation consistency and writing. But I think your articles are pretty close. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if the image under Paleobiology should be swapped with the one in the infobox, as it shows the animal better/is more complete.

Maybe, I felt that it fit better in Paleobiology as it showed the tail spike (which is discussed there), most often the infobox images are of the eurypterid from the top. The paleobiology image does not show the carapace for instance. If you want to I could still change them as the fossil in the image under Paleobiology is more complete as you say. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a very big deal. If we're lucky, we might get a real photo of a specimen to put there one day. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Would be good to note if any of the depicted fossils are type specimens.

The pictured specimen of E. obesus appears to be the type specimen, other fossils do not appear to be. Noted that the illustration was of the E. obesus type specimen.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Could also be good to note when old reconstructions are from.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is some duplinking, try this script to highlight them:[1]

Should be fixed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "referring E. scorpionis to Eurypterus" and "Eusarcus was sufficiently similar to the related Carcinosoma to be designated as synonymous". Seems some of these combination synonyms could be listed in the infobox then?

So list all the species in combinations with Carcinosoma and Eurypterus as synonyms? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically, alternative combinations are synonyms too, so they should be listed as such. If the list grows too long, you can just collapse it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Added them under a collapsed "alternative combinations" list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• For images that are vertically long, use the upright parameter instead of pixel size forcing.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "large ellipse of the abdomen." Ellipse-shape?

Yup, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Further features distinctive of the genus includes" Include? Plural.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "sharp, cylindrically shaped and sharp telson" It must be very sharp then!

Hah, the sharpest telson there ever was. Fixed :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "based on solely on outlines" On on.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• You only state nationality and occupation of some writers, should be consistent.

Occupations and nationalities should be listed for all of them now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "declared that the differences between Eusarcus and all related forms of eurypterids were so great" and "concluded that Eusarcus was sufficiently similar to the related Carcinosoma to be designated as synonymous" seem somewhat contradictory?

Yes but this is what I got out of the source. Mainly based on the sentences "it is entirely evident from our present knowledge that the group, typically represented by Eusarcus scorpionis, is generically distinct from all its allies" and "There are only minor differences between the Buffalo and Kokomo specimens; the latter are undoubtedly congeneric and the term Carcinosoma has to yield to Eusarcus". Seems a bit contradictory, yes.

• " bombing runs of the National Museum of Prague" On?

Changed to "on". Also specified that the runs were on Prague and not on the museum specifically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "They referred the Scottish Wenlock-age Eurypterus species E. obesus to the genus, alongside the Pridoli-Lochkovian-age Czech species E. acrocephalus" Here you should probably state by who and when they were named, and their original generic affiliations should be in the taxobox.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Original generic affiliations are in the taxobox now, will look into the when and who.

Done.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• You only list the specimen number of one holotype, what about the two others?

Can't find the specimen number for E. obesus but it states that the specimen is housed at the British Museum (though this is in 1868 so it might have changed), can't find anything on E. scorpionis.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• You mix past and present tenses a lot when describing features, should preferably be consistent.

Now all in present tense unless I missed some. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Eusarcana" was overlooked" Why quotation marks when this is the currently recognised name?

Removed them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure what was wrong with the name Eusarcana. At the time it was supposedly seen as redundant, but since it is now recognised, what does "The naming of Eusarcana was one of many contributions to nomenclature by Strand seen as unhelpful today" refer to?

The paper words it as "Eusarcana remains a further example of Embrik Strand’s less than helpful contributions to zoological nomenclature". I assume the name was just considered completely unnecessary.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "begrudgingly noted" What does the source say? Do they state themselves that it was "begrudgingly"? Otherwise it seems hyperbolic.

The overall tone is remarkably begrudging (a lot of unnecessary information on other "mistakes" by Strand, a lot of usage of "unfortunately" etc.) but I'll remove it as there is nothing that outright puts it as "begrudgingly". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Eurypterids and preoccupied name should be linked at first occurrence outside the intro.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "collapsed to only display the Carcinosomatoidea" Collapsed ot just simplified?

I suppose "simplified" woule be correct, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The features of Eusarcana indicates" Tense.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, the walking legs of Eusarcana are more powerful than those of Eurypterus in general, with them decreasing in strength the further back they are, indicating that there was an emphasis on lifting the front of the carapace, in Eurypterus the legs are the longest the further back they are, which indicates that it would have had an emphasis on keeping the head down." Extremely long sentence.

Split it up into three sentences. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "the spike of Eusarcana and that of scorpions opens up the possibility that the spike of Eusarcana" Repetitive.

Changed the second "spike of Eusarcana" to "tail spike". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "large amounts of agility" This sounds odd, I wonder if it isn't better to just say it wasn't very agile.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Without the contraction, though! FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "εὖ,(eu-) meaning "true", and σάρξ (sarx), meaning "flesh"." Not necessary n the intro, as you've already translated the name once.

What do you mean? Should I just state the name meaning in the intro and reserve the etymology to where it is stated under classification? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Eusarcana is known for its odd proportions and features," Use semicolon, sicne the sentence ends with "differentiate it from most other eurypterids".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• "by a genus of living spiders" Harvestmen are not spiders.

I should have known this, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Any images of E. acrocephalus?

The once we have on Commons are virtually all E. scorpionis, with two images with the same specimen of E. obesus. Nothing on E. acrocephalus so far but it might be possible to track down images of it that are in the public domain but not yet uploaded here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• That's another one in the bag then, will now pass. Ref 12 seems to be weirdly formatted, might want to give it a standard template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed up ref 12. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)