Talk:Hibbertopterus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, I'll be reviewing this article. It'll take around a week or so, because it's very verbose and uses terms I'm not totally familiar with. starsandwhales (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Some of the images are reconstructions that are own works of ДиБгд. I'm counting that as OR unless these reconstructions were also published in some paper or article.

Well, reconstructions by wikipedia users are commonplace on article about extinct animals so I don't think it's normal to count them as OR, I'll ask at the relevant wikiproject but I haven't seen this complaint come up before. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added references on Commons matching the depictions in the article, as per what I was told by editors at Wikiproject Palaeontology. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• There are a lot of sentences that are unclear or somewhat confusing. Is there any way to rephrase these so it's easier for the average reader, such as defining certain words? starsandwhales (talk)

ex.

It used its specialised forward-facing appendages, equipped with several spines, to rake through the substrate of the environments in which it lived in search for small invertebrates to eat, which it could then push towards its mouth.

As such, Hibbertopterus would have used a hexapodal gait.

In 1831, Scottish naturalist John Scouler described the remains, consisting of a massive and unusual prosoma and several tergites, of a large and strange arthropod discovered in deposits in Scotland of Lower Carboniferous age, but did not assign a name to the fossils.

The three fragmentary genera were suggested to by synonyms of each other by American paleontologist James Lamsdell in 2010, which would have meant the oldest name, Dunsopterus, taking priority and subsuming both Cyrtoctenus and Vernonopterus.

I've explained and linked some of the words in the sentences you brought up. I'm not sure if that's enough but it is a bit inherently difficult since the animal in question here is quite obscure and virtually only written about academically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• MoS says that citations go right before periods (occasionally commas). Basically the citation is given at the end of the phrase or sentence. starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd need some specific examples of where this is violated. I know in some cases that citations pop up in the middle of the text here but for the most part that should be when a specific study is referenced, e.g. "a 2018 survey[8]". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Double check for duplicate links starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless one counts the lead section that should be all duplicate links gone. There are some duplicate links remaining in the "table of species" but I think that should be fine since the order of things in it can be rearranged and it's just linking specific time periods. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)