This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Most of the duplicate links now removed, the ones that remain I believe are justifiable (linking the animal's home environment, the Solnhofen Limestone, in the section about its home environment seems right even if it was already linked much higher up in another section)
Redirect pages have now all been made
I already did my best to solve the issues proposed at the FAC back before it closed, though it seemed to have been too late as it didnt gain enough consensus for uplisting
The blurry images have been replaced with higher quality versions
At first glance, there is a bunch of WP:duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram), which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
Redirect all species and synonyms.
Have all issues brought up at the last FAC been solved?
The images from old journals are rather low res, it seems to me that some of them exist in higher res if you zoom in more:[2] What method did you use to extract them?
Fixes look good, it's easier to keep track of what has been dealt with if you answer under each individual point, that's also what will be expected at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
This[3] image could perhaps also be found in a higher res version?
I've tried getting that figure again but everything I do either gets the same resolution or lower, so this is the best I've managed to get. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many names under Classification that need the same treatment.
This one I'm not so sure of since using surnames and the years in brackets is how in text citing of papers is done usually but if there is a guideline or insistence on the change I can do it still. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
While we for some reason usually place classification sections after description in prehistoric reptile articles, it could maybe be argued that it would make sense after the history section here, because the two seem to be very intertwined. Perhaps I'll bring it up on the Paleoproject Discord to see what people think.
There's now some WP:image sandwiching between the second and third images in the article, could be arranged in a more staggered way maybe.
After several tries that resulted in things which looked really ugly I decided to use the multiple image format instead, think this is better now. Olmagon (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks better, but I wonder if it could look even neater if the image of the type species was left aligned directly under Discovery and naming, then the two assigned species could be grouped in a double image on the right under Species. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The type species pics are now aligned left, from what I can see this produces the sandwiching that we were trying to lose in the first place. Olmagon (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps mention museum in the infobox photo's image caption?
Is it possible to give etymologies for the individual species names?
While I would want to do that, in the papers describing each species (except P. lemovices) I saw no mention of any etymology. I assume the specific names of P. minor and P. pusillus mean "small" or something like that but I just can't find the confirmation. Olmagon (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
"and it is difficult to tell from the original line drawing of the specimen" As above?
van Straelen died in 1964, which is less than 70 years ago, and he wasn't American so I'm not sure Wikimedia copyright policies would let me put the drawing in. Olmagon (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Coincidentally, I wrote Mimodactylus, which perhaps lived alongside some of these species.
I wonder if "Valid species" is the correct way to put it; the reassigned species are also "valid", they just aren't recognised as part of this genus. Furthermore, the text indicates that some of them may not even be valid. Maybe just say "species" or "recognized species>"?
"reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) (excluding the rostrum)" Looks a bit wonky with the double parenthesis, how about just comma before "excluding the rostrum"?
"and pterosaurs.[34]" Why not give examples, as you do for other groups? Especially considering there is indication some pterosaurs fed on crustaceans.
Since the source is now found[8], I think we can find any such missing info, though it's of course in German. But it seems at least that the specimen is from Hakel Lagerstätte, which should be mentioned. If we want to tease out more information for FAC, Jens Lallensack can maybe help with the German. The citation also needs proper formatting, now it looks incomplete, and link to the Commons PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have not found any literature on stenochirid diets so either it is evading me or it doesn't exist (and I wouldn't be surprised if the latter is true). Olmagon (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Sexual dimorphism is known in Pseudastacus, with the pincers of the females being more elongated than those of the males. There is evidence of possible gregarious behavior in the form of multiple individuals preserved alongside each other, possibly killed in a mass mortality event." Probably good to state species for each of these cases. We can't be sure each lifestyle applies to all species, I'd assume?
I'm not sure if there is a guideline for this but the rest of the Description section has been using present tense instead of past so I'm keeping it for now.
There seems to be inconsistencies in the citation formatting, which is taken very seriously at FAC, if you want to take it there. For example, sometimes first names are spelled in full, other times abreviated, and sometimes onlyyears are given, other times exact date.
I have been trying to get the dates as precise as I could find, which was easier to do in more recent papers than older ones which often only had the year. If this will be a problem at FAC though I suppose I can have them all changed to display only the year. Olmagon (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Capitalisation in citation titles should also be made consistent and changed so that only book titles are capitalised, but journal article titles not. Again, mainly an issue for FAC.
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pseudastacus_mucronatus.jpg){kind=link}