Talk:Jaekelopterus

Restoration Accuracy

The restoration of Jaekelopterus looks similar to the restoration of Pterygotus' restoration. Was that intentional? Enneigard (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They genera only differ in minor details. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the family

If anyone else is able to find it, please add it to the taxobox. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Jaekelopterus"

Can anybody decipher the Latin origin of the name?

I mean, it sounds an awful lot like Jackalope--which would almost be fitting, as a 2.5m scorpion is no more outlandish! 76.111.8.39 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Otto Jaekel's pterid from the Rhineland." Pterid as in Eurypterid (fin? wing? claw? spine? telson? got me). --Wetman (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lagerstätte

Someone needs to write a stub on this Early Devonian formation, using whatever is the most common term for it. Is it the Klerf Formation or the Willwerath Lagerstätte?--Wetman (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthropleura

Aside from its length, Arthropleura is not really the largest arthropod ever, and is certainly smaller than the likes of Pterygotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.208.248 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Name means xxx

I tagged out the current wording for a reason. The name doesnt actually mean "Jaekels wing, its derived from it. Taxonomic name don't ever have a vernacular meaning in the way that the sentence is structured, and you never see etymology sections in research papers wording it that way. We should be giving the etymology as its worded in the reputable paleontology literature, eg that the name is a patronym honoring Jaekel and and the Greek work "pterus" meaning wing.--Kevmin § 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

While I think that is quite unnecessary, as (like I said) the "means" wording is used in other Paleontology articles, such as the Featured Nigersaurus article, I can change it to some properly worded etymology, yes. I am going to have to revert your tagging out of the wording first though, since it somehow causes problems with citation #8 (no idea why that happens). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If we look at more popular, yet somewhat technical books, like Darren Naish's "The Great Dinosaur Discoveries", we do get wording such as "in 1970 Welles named it Dilophosaurus, meaning "double-crested lizard"" (page 95). It could be argued that Wikipedia should reflect works intended for laymen rather than for professionals. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest the wording is a rather minute detail in this case and I think either works. Readers could potentially be confused by the current one but I think it is still quite clear what the name means. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that we shouldnt be perpetuating the false idea that neolatin terms "mean" something/anything in English, and I would say that "Dilophosaurus, meaning "double-crested lizard"" is most likely totally false, since the type description doesnt at all say that, but gives the etymology as the break down of the roots used in the name combination.--Kevmin § 00:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it would be a bit self-defeating to try to be even more correct than respected paleontologists (even if it is "technically" wrong). For Wikipedia's purposes, as long as we have precedents in books written by professional paleontologists, it can act as an accepted standard. Thomas R. Holtz has a dinosaur genera list in the back of his 2007 book, with a column called "meaning" that translates the names. Michael Benton writes "Dinosauria (meaning "fearfully great reptiles")" in the 2000 Scientific American book of Dinosaurs, which is pretty technical. Dougal Dixon says "Ankylosaurus means fused reptile" in his 1993 book. The list could probably go on, and that's only from my own, limited "library". FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I've fixed a couple of trivial layout errors.

• Perhaps say in the first sentence that it's an arthropod, as "eurypterid" won't be familiar to all readers.
  • Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ancient Greek pteron really only meant "wing".
  • Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• You've helpfully glossed chelicera as "claw" in the text; it should also be glossed in the lead.
  • It is glossed as claw in the lead ("Based on the isolated fossil remains of a large chelicera (claw) from the Klerf Formation of Germany...")? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please wikilink apex predator, Cope's Rule.
  • Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please explain telson, stergite, opisthosome, metastoma when first mentioned (either in text or preferably with a diagram).
  • Done. Explained in text since they first appear at different points in the text and fitting in a diagram would be difficult. "Opisthosome" only appears in the context of "Opisthosomal appendages", but I explained the term there either way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• How do we know it had "good swimming abilities", specially if it had a lightweight build? Would that not have meant weak muscles and low speed?
  • Fixed this, the paper actually states that pterygotids were likely highly agile, but not necessarily fast. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig can't find anything above "unlikely".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'd say so, not presuming knowledge of the literature.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well, welcome to the GA process. I've tidied up the refs a little. If you're thinking to go on to FAC, be advised that they look really hard at the refs, which must all be formatted exactly the same way, and you'll have to be very careful with how any primary sources are used, too. It would be very much appreciated if you'd take the time to review one or two articles from the list of GA nominations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review the article and for the tips. I'll browse through the list of nominations to see if there's anything I feel knowledgeable enough about to review. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Braddy American?

Is Simon J. Braddy American?Lacunae (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, he's British. Fixed! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)