Talk:Pterygotus

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Ichthyovenator in topic GA Review
Good articlePterygotus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPterygotus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2018Good article nomineeListed
September 25, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Info

edit

I created this from reasonably shabby laymans knowledge, and don't have enough info to make it any larger. However, I feel it either needs someone to fill it in, or for it to be merged and redirected to Eurypterid. As for the factual info, it's all correct even if I'm no scholar on the subject. 6 pairs of legs, not 4 or 8, as discussed on that page.--TVPR 08:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're mistaken, because you're only counting their "walking" legs, not appendages like their pinchers.--Kaz 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then I stand corrected. However, original measure form is metric. I put a rough imperial equivalent in parentheses instead of just outright replacing the original form. --TVPR 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weight

edit

Has anybody come across a weight estimate for this thing? PenguinJockey 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anatomical Description

edit

I added an anatomical description from the TIP, thereby doubling the number of sources used in the article! Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!--Digthepast (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

We should also get started on Pterygotidae, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done!--Digthepast (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Might as well make myself more versed in eurypterid anatomy and such right ;) I'll start looking over the article here soon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Description

History

  • "Pterygotus" doesn't need quotation marks
  • "large fish, Pterygotus ..." I believe a semicolon is appropriate instead of a comma
  • The two paragraphs on P. bolivianus could be merged
  • Not quite sure what a "free ramus" is: if it has been linked or described before or not
  • "Middle Devonian P. gaspesiensis (1953, Canada)" as a Canadian I am mildly offended that the American species have their states/province listed but not the Canadian one, especially considering Canada is larger than the US
    • I apologize for this unfortunate slight against your nation but I'm going to have to blame the source used for only putting its location as "Canada". I have added in its location as the more precise "Quebec, Canada" based on another source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No discussion of P. carmani, P. cobbi, P. gaspesiensis, P. ludensis, ?P. formosus, P. nobilis, P. siemiradzkii
    • I think P. problematicus should also be discussed. I know that it has been considered a nomen vanum, but it is one more species that should have its own inclusion in the article, perhaps under the "Initial finds" section. Super Ψ Dro 18:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • All species with the exception of P. formosus are now discussed in the article. It has proven inexplicably difficult to track down anything to go on for this one. This paper posits that it was originally described in this work, but as you can see this is a work that from a quick browsing through (pdf version) obviously deals with plants almost entirely. Though Pterygotus is referenced in the beginning as occuring at the same localities as some of the plants I see no new species of it being described and as far as I have been able to see no mention of anything with the species name "formosus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Alright thats fine. If you can find any other sources on it that would be great but its not necessary. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Classification

Paleobiology

Images


Struck out comments, I think only the few points left remain to be corrected. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply


Looks like everything is done, time to give it the green plus! IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking the time to conduct the review! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply