Talk:Titanokorys

Help with cladogram

I have made a cladogram for the article, it looks good but can be changed, if anyone can help that would be great. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Junnn11:, I think you can help with that cladogram. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I'll modifying it with images better showing diagnosis (image of carapace/frontal appendage instead of size diagram). Also those of Zhenghecaris was oudated reconstruction as a thylacocephalid instead of a radiodont.--Junnn11 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Criteria 1

There's some very obvious copyediting issues (grammar, word choices, lang inconsistencies, etc) that I can easily fix and will do. Slightly bigger problems concerns the flow of reading; some sentences are excessively long and could be broken up to two. "mothership" and "spaceship" weren't capitalized in the Science article; should stick closely to the source.

The sentence in Description section, "Whats striking about this fossil are numerous specimens of the agnostid Trilobite genus Peronopsis in the immediate vicinity or directly on the exuvia." needs some clarification. Is that sentence related to the next one?Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That line is in the description section, Yeah it is related, but i will add more to it Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In Classification, is "In the study that was conducted" worth mentioning? If it is, that study needs to be specified, otherwise remove this part. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer got it, its removed. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I will conduct a final read-through. You should do the same to fix any language issues. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 2

Very good sourcing, reliable sources. Citation needs to be in full, however; cited but incomplete (missing journal volume and/or issue, author(s), etc). Please fill them up.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you possibly show me what references are incomplete so I can more easily fix them?

Thanks Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer, Ok I fixed the citations that lacked an author, only problem was that one of the news articles said it was made by the Royal Ontario Museum, that would not fit into the "first name"-"Last name" format of the citations. What do you suggest we do about that.

Thanks Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That belongs to the website parameter. I have fixed it and added an archive url since the original url is dead. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 3, 4, 5

Pass

Criteria 6

There are two files that show hypothetical reconstruction in different formats. Is it possible to stick to one, or is there some reason to justify including both?

The classification diagram is in an odd potition. Perhaps it could be resized and/or shifted higher in the body so it isn't obstructed with the reference list.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The paratype specimen of Titanokorys, a large anterior head sclerite

• ... that before it was formally named, the Cambrian radiodont Titanokorys was often nicknamed by paleontologists the "mothership" in reference to its large head resembling a spacecraft? Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/early-ocean-predator-was-giant-swimming-head
  • ALT1: ... that radiodonts, like Titanokorys ruled the seas of the Cambrian more then half a billion years ago? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292756/
  • ALT2: ... that the relative rarity of the radiodont Titanokorys in the Marble canyon suggests that the deposits it is known from possibly represent the outermost edge of its distribution range in life? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424305/
  • ALT3: ... that the predatory stem-group arthropod Titanokorys might have used its large head (which made up half of its whole body length) to scoop up prey from the sea floor? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424305/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This article received GA status three days ago, so I believe it can be nominated, and I did not review this article for GA status. The user who reviewed it was Dora the Axe-plorer.

Improved to Good Article status by Fossiladder13 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC).

• Starting review--Kevmin § 18:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Article long enough and GA new enough. The first question I have Fossiladder13, is there any reference that actually uses the faux-nacular "Gaines' Titan Helmet"? If not it should be removed as an OR name. if there is, it needs to be cited.--Kevmin § 22:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok @Kevmin:,, I have gotten the part fixed, is there anything else of note?.Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Its still problematic, as Caron & Moysiuk 2021 don't use the phrase "Titan Helmet". You've already provided an ample etymology section covering the sources for the name parts, there is no reason to introduce the OR faux-nacular.--Kevmin § 15:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Gotcha, got that removed. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As noted article long enough and GA approved recently. No policy issues are now identified. No copyvio issues are seen with the wiki mirror ignored. Alt1 is a preferable hook, being cited and verified. Alt0 is problematic, as the source does not support that paleontologists used those terms other than as shape descriptors, while the news article used the terms as nicknames for the radiodonts as a whole. looks good to go with Alt1.--Kevmin § 16:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fossiladder13 and Kevmin: I'm not sure I want to go with ALT1 – it seems to be about radiodonts as a whole, rather than the bolded article. Is there a more tailored hook to be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fossiladder13: The type description discusses the relative rarity of Titanokorys, and postulates on the possibility that the new Burgess shale exposures might represent the edge of the species range in life. That is a good section of information that could be added in and used for hooky material.--Kevmin § 23:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, @Theleekycauldron: I added two new alternative hooks, how do these look?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, alt2 isnt quite accurate to the type description and its not actually covered in the article yet. Variation in spatial distribution might then have played a role in coexistence, with the relative rarity of Titanokorys in the Marble Canyon area possibly resulting from proximity to the edge of its range.

Alt3 is worded too definitively right now, both the type description and the Phys article clearly use "might" and other qualifiers.--Kevmin § 20:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, I've made improvements to the two remaining DYK hooks, how do they look?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fossiladder13 Alt2 is good, it matches the Type desc now, the remaining problem is that its still not actually in the Titanokorys article. Alt3 is better, but seems overly verbose in its current form, it could be trimmed down to be more streamlined.--Kevmin § 14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, there ya go, added that part to the ecology section of the article, and shortened Alt3. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Approve alt2 after massaging the certainty tone of the article.--Kevmin § 14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, ok what do we do now?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fossiladder13 At this point in the process, you and I are done with the nom, unless the promoter who moves the nomination to a prep queue has any questions or concerns and pings us.--Kevmin § 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)