Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megarachne/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [1].

Megarachne

edit
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A famous ancient "sea scorpion" once thought to be a giant spider, Megarachne and the previously made FA Jaekelopterus are by far the most visited articles on Eurypterids. The article as it is has gone through a GA review and a peer review and to my knowledge includes all relevant information on the animal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "suggest that it dwelled in fresh water and not in marine environments" Suggest "suggest" → 'indicates'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne was similar to other eurypterids within the Mycteropoidea, a rare group known primarily from South Africa and Scotland that had evolved a specialized method of feeding known as sweep-feeding in which they raked through the substrate of riverbeds in order to capture and eat smaller invertebrates" To my eye you are trying to get too much into this sentence. Consider breaking it.
Split this sentence into three smaller sentences. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life" Consider "throughout" → 'during'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne also preserves a large and circular second opisthosomal tergite" I am not sure about the use of "preserves"; do you mean 'possessed' or similar?
Yeah, changed to "possessed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which the function" → 'the function of which'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the subtrapezoid-shaped heads" Delete "the".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessioned" is an odd word. Is there a more accessible word or phrase which could be used?
Changed "accessioned to" to "stored at". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Muséum d'Histoire naturelle" → 'Muséum d'histoire naturelle'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a locality dated to" I am not sure that "locality" is the correct description. And would it not be easier to say 'which has been dated to' or similar?
Changed to "which has been dated to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what possibly is" → 'what is possibly'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located between the two eyes in the center of the head" → 'located in the center of the head between the two eyes'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hünicken's identification relied heavily on X-ray microtomography of the holotype and additional hidden structures–such as a sternum and labium, coxae and cheliceral fangs–were also extrapolated from the X-radiographs" Recommend replacing "and" with a semi colon. Or even a full stop.
Went with a full stop. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "far exceeding the goliath birdeater" Delete "far". I don't think that being 12% larger can be characterised as "far".
Done. Also removed the "only" before "around 30 centimetres" as 30 cm is pretty huge for a spider. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discovery quickly became popular and various exhibits with reconstructions of Megarachne servinei, based on the detailed descriptions, reconstructions, plaster casts and illustrations made by Hünicken, and gigantic spiders were set up in museums around the world." Could you have a relook at this sentence? It seems a little crowded and/or confused to me.
Changed it around a bit, is it better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
  • "doubted by some arachnologists such as Shear et al. 1989, who stated" Comma after "arachnologists".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stated that one reason for the specimen being originally identified as a spider was a "structure in front of the carapace [being] identified as spatulate chelicerae"; later it is stated that "discrepancies in the morphology of the fossil that could not be accommodated with an arachnid identity ... include ... spatulate chelicerae. I am confused.
Yes, that is very strange. Reading the source it appears that Hünicken did identify these spatulate chelicerae in the original description but that he noted then that they were unknown in any other spider. I've removed it from the list of features used to identify the fossil as a spider and noted that this was noted by Hünicken at the second mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "access only to the plaster casts" Is there a reason for the "the"? If not, delete it.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this into a footnote. Not sure if its necessary to link to the compression-impression section of the fossil article since "compression fossil" is already linked, but I can if you consider it necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That's fine.
  • "and counterpart housed in a private collection" 1. 'and a counterpart'; 2. this is not the appropriate place to cover where the counterpart is currently located.
Done, and removed "housed in a private collection".Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now accessioned to the Museum of Paleontology at the National University of Cordoba" You have already said this. One of them needs to go.
Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and consisting of" Do you mean 'and also consisting of'?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was in fact a large eurypterid" Delete "in fact".
Removed "in fact" and restructured the surrounding text a bit so that it flows better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were concluded to be part of" → 'it was concluded that Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were part of'.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life)" See above.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sparse mucrones of Megarachne might be because of its age as Megarachne is significantly larger than Woodwardopterus" Comma after "age".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showcases the relationship" Do you mean 'shows the relationship'?
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The environment in which the fossils of Megarachne have been recovered in was" 2 x "in"; delete the second.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along the coastal areas" Why "coastal areas" if it was "a freshwater environment"?
Removed the "coastal areas" part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have allowed it to sweep-feed to rake through the soft sediment of the rivers" The expression "to sweep-feed to rake through" seems clumsy to the point that I am not sure if it is not a typo.
Yeah, I agree. Changed it to "... to sweep-feed, raking through ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which covers a timespan from 306.9 to 298.9 million years ago" Delete "a timespan from".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beginning to completely fuse with the northern continents" I am not sure that the word "completely” is necessary.
Probably not, removed "completely". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but also more or less developed uniformly" I struggle to understand what this means. (Possibly delete "more or less"?)
Removed "more or less", the source says "The Late Carboniferous flora was described by Archangelsky (1986, 1990) as being of low diversity but uniformly developed across the Gondwanan continent ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Late Carboniferous climate of Gondwana was relatively cold and periglacial at points." Have you not just said this?
Oops, yes. Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A grand article. I enjoyed that. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a pleasure researching and writing this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This method involved raking through the substrate" Delete "method".
Done! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes. All good, but with one minor follow up point above. I am supporting nonetheless. Really good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I endorse the comment, above, about the overall quality of the work, but I have a number of sourcing points to raise:

  • No spotchecks carried out, mainly because in many cases the given page ranges are too wide for this to be feasible. See individual comments, below.
  • Links:
  • Ref 1: the link is to the unpaginated online version, published 15 Feb 2005, not to the print version, published 22 March to which the page range applies. You should specify date rather than year, & remove the range. For greater precision you could use section numbers to specify which parts of the source you are citing.
This was one of those auto-generated refs, specified the date and removed the page range. Is it 100 % required to specify which parts are cited? That means I'll have to split up the citations and since this is the most-used source that requires some extra work (not trying to wiggle out of that, just making sure). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4: Books published in 1955 didn't have ISBNs. The one which you give is for a later edition, but I'm not clear which. WorldCat does not list Størmer among the various authors of this book.
Removed ISBN. Størmer is among the authors (link). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting
  • Ref 2: A page range of 19–99 is too wide for verification purposes, and should be made more specific for the particular information cited.
  • Ref 5: Page range given "44–8" should, presumably, be "44–48"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7: Page ranges again not specific enough
  • Ref 8: The source is 294 pages long, but no page reference supplied.
Added page number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9: Can you clarify publisher, separate from title, and add retrieval date?
Done (I think). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: Again, concern about width of page range.
Shortened page range to the pages from which information is actually cited (461 to 469). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: sources seem to meet the required FA quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton: I have adressed most of the issues above but I no longer have access to the sources used for ref 2 and 7 so I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to 1. above, splitting the refs is by far the best solution to aid verification, and I can't honestly think of an alternative. I realise it will be a lot of work, but I believe that with an article of this quality, it's worth doing.
Brianboulton I've split the citations of the source by the sections; that should be all the current points addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 2, is it possible to find an alternative source for the information cited, if you can't specify the page in the current range?
I think WP:RX would be the way to go there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found an alternate source and replaced source 2, just splitting the big source left to do now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 7, I think we can let that go.

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot

edit

This seems like a good article that may suffer from lack of reviews. I don't have a lot to add. It doesn't seem that much is known about this species, so I doubt there's anything missing from the article's coverage. I just have two prose points to add to Gog's:

  • "…the fossil had been misidentified as a large prehistoric spider." I think "was" works better here than "had been".
Sure sounds better, yeah. Changed to "was". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…but as a freshwater predator these would likely not represent prey items for Megarachne." This is a misplaced modifier. I suggest "…but as a freshwater predator Megarachne would probably not have fed on them."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus

edit

The article is very good and now it could perfectly pass this review without any changes, but I have some suggestions. You don't have to do them all since they are quite perfectionist, especially the links (as usual). Super Ψ Dro 12:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would link ornamentation, scale, appendage, spider, aquatic environment, anterior, posterior, dorsal, ventral, paleontologist, Argentina, order, plaster cast, arachnid, deposits, South America, family, genera, cladogram, fossil (all of these in the main text), genus, extinct, deposits, Argentina, species, spider, fresh water, South Africa, Scotland and South America (lead).
I'm not sure how much I should link of this to avoid Wikipedia:OVERLINK. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have probably exaggerated a bit. I have removed some of little importance. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked all these terms (I think). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain carapace, appendage, parabolic, hastate and anteroedian.
Explained carapace, appendage, hastate and anteroedian. Not sure if I need to explain parabolic as it's already a description of a shape. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Maybe coxa should be explained as well. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, explained coxa. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the coxa was the point of attachment of the appendage and the body, and that the leg segments were known as podomeres. Is the coxa a podomere? In that case, it would be preferable to specify that the coxa is the podomere that joins the appendage with the body, or more simply, the proximalmost leg segment. Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So "limb segment" is technically correct, but yes the "coxa" is the part which connects the rest of the leg to the body. Went with "proximalmost limb segment". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National University of Cordoba" should be "National University of Córdoba", a minor detail.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is rather my opinion and you don't have to do this, but I think "(303.7 to 298.9 million years ago (Ma))" looks odd with brackets inside brackets, I always try to avoid this. Maybe you could add a comma or remove the abbreviation, but you don't have to.
I agree, changed to a comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With length of a 33.9 centimetres" With a length of 33.9 centimetres?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You completely removed the "a". Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I did, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shear et al. 1989", "Selden et al. (2005)", "Lamsdell et al. (2010)" et al. should be italicized.
Italicized all instances of et al.. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the comma before the note in the last paragraph in the history section, but that's up to you.
That looks better, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "palaeontologist" and "paleontologist", so remove one.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could say somewhere that eurypterids and arachnids were closely related, preferably replacing the sentence in which it's said eurypterids and horseshoe crabs were related.
Of course. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to mention in some way that Megarachne was classified in Arachnida before being recognized as eurypterid in the same sentence. At that point in the article it's kind of obvious, but it's to emphasize that Hünicken's interpretation was not very unrealistic or absurd. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, noted this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second tergite of mycteroptid Woodwardopterus" the second tergite of the mycteroptid Woodwardopterus?
Added "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the size of the specimens" I would say "and the size of their specimens".
Gonna have to disagree on this one, I think "the" works just as well and flows better than "their morphology and the size of their specimens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unlike typical eurypterids (especially the swimming eurypterids of the suborder Eurypterina) a freshwater environment" add a comma after the brackets.
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to say again the years that the Gzhelian stage covered in the paleoecology section?
Not really, removed the second instance of the dates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mycteropoids" The mycteropoids.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megarachne and the other members of its family, Mycterops and Woodwardopterus" I would remove "the" since Hastimima (the only other mycteroptid genus) is apparently different from these three.
Yes, this was written before we found out about Hastimima's classification as a mycteroptid. Changed "the" to "two". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could mention Hastimima somewhere in the classification to make it clear that there's no other member in the family Mycteroptidae. Super Ψ Dro 14:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can fit it in explicitly in a non-cumbersome way, but I added "three of the four genera that constitute the Mycteroptidae" under Classification, so that it is clear that there would still be more than one mycteroptid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be enough. Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't! Good catch! The illustration used in the article is based on more detailed figures in a paper in which the metastoma is visible but no, it isn't visible from the view presented here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

@Ichthyovenator: This seems mostly moribund with only one support and no activity in the last month. I've added it to the Urgents list, but it will be archived soon if it does not receive significant attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I've posted this on the WikiProject Palaeontology page, hopefully this will see some spike in activity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did the GA review with FAC in mind, and I think the article looks even better now. Usually I don't support articles I've GA reviewed, but it would be a shame if it was archived. I wonder if A. Parrot has seen the replies above? I think the footnote could get a citation also. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Dunkleosteus77, who peer reviewed, has something to add as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link groups like [[Type species|type]] [[species]] should be avoided, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE
Removed this link group. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That one - there are others. Please check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've caught all link groups now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's another in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this was caught by IJReid then, unless I'm blind I can't see any link groups remaining there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ma range in the infobox doesn't match that in the article body
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a keel? What's a subtrapezoid? What's a tubercle? What's spatulate? As a non-expert I'm having some trouble following the description
Added explanations for these terms; linked "tubercle". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the holotype recovered?
The sources don't specify. Not sure if the date it was excavated is needed (date the holotype was found is for instance not included in the FA Apatosaurus article). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the specimen identifier in body text?
Not really but I don't see how it detracts from the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is rather technical so I think anything we can do to cut unnecessary jargon would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the specimen identifier of the holotype specimen is unnecessary jargon, but yes I can see how it increases the overall technical feel of the article so I've removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some additional MOS work needed - examples include unspaced endashes (should either be spaced or be converted to emdashes) and linking (eurypterid is linked in the third body sentence but appears unlinked in the second)
Fixed the dashes and the linking of "eurypterid". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, examples only. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it considered normal for holotypes to be placed in bank vaults?
Probably not but there is no commentary in the sources on why it was deposited in the vault. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This extinct group of chelicerates are more commonly known as "sea scorpions" and were closely related to arachnids, making Hünicken's initial misinterpretation of the fossil not very absurd as the groups are closely related" - this could be made more concise, avoiding repeating "related" twice. I notice this type of repetition elsewhere as well - for example a couple of sentences later with "despite only being represented by two known specimens, Megarachne represents". Suggest checking throughout.
Redid this part, should be fine now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, makes sense. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, if you're not too busy, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, for a couple of the issues mentioned above (MOS and prose), the examples mentioned have been fixed but others elsewhere in the article remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IchthyovenatorNikkimaria I've made some changes to the article to adjust for what was suggested by this review, and also make the article a bit more readable. Eg, I undid the change to describe what sub-trapezoid is since its just a shape, unlinked things like deposits or million years ago from lead etc, added conversion templates, and rewrote sections to remove excessive bracketing of terms. If these changes are approved by the nominator, I think they should suffice to fulfill the FA review points. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of your changes were definitely helpful, but others not so much - for example I don't think many non-expert readers would understand "keel" in this particular context, nor what the difference is between a subtrapezoid vs just a regular trapezoid. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so slow with these; I've been busy with the holiday season. I added back the descriptions of "keel" and "sub-trapezoid"; I'm a bit uncertain of what remains to be done after IJReid's edit to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate IJReid's efforts at simplification but think that in the process some needed contextual links were lost - for example to terms like order and family. Some style issues remain - for example, ENGVAR inconsistencies (center vs programme). I also think the Paleoecology section would benefit from some more reorganization and rephrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "programme" to "program" and reorganized the paleoecology section a bit, if more changes need to be done it would be helpful with specific examples. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit

I was going to promote this but a few quick quirks that should be fixed, besides the few issues remaining for Nikkimaria above.

  • Why is there a "ScienceBlogs" entry for the Switek ref but not for the other Biology Letters souces (Selden and Lamsdell)?
Yes this is strange, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pinto ref has an error message displaying.
I can't see any error messages but I added a bit more information to the ref. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely subjective but could we have the huge Eurypterid template be default collapsed? It kinda overwhelms the article. This one shouldn't hold up promotion - it's purely a "I don't like that big blob of something" at the end and is a personal pet peeve of mine.
Makes sense, made it default collapsed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the above issues (including Nikki's) are taken care of, looks good to promote. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

edit

Sorry for jumping in so late, but I think the prose needs some more work, and comprehensibility can still be improved. See comments below.

  • the mucrones (a dividing ridge – "mucrones" is plural, but you explain it in singular?
The explanation here is for the entire "the cuticular sculpture of the mucrones" and not just "the mucrones". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite only two known specimens having been recovered – more concise would be either "despite only two specimens are known" or "despite only two specimens having been recovered", but not "known" and "recovered" in the same sentence.
Removed "known". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • cuticular – needs link or explanation.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • since these features are characteristic of eurypterids. – this part of the sentence is superfluous imo, and I also don't fully understand: Does this mean that the other features that hint to an eurypterid identity are not characteristic, and why would they be less important for this reason?
This follows this quote from the cited source: "Many features of Megarachne indicate its assignment to the Eurypterida; for example, the cuticular sculpture of mucrones and raised lunules are characteristic of eurypterids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of their prosoma (the head plate), hastate (e.g. shaped like a gladius, a Roman sword) telsons (the posteriormost part of the body, often taking the shape of a spike or otherwise ornamented in eurypterids) with paired keels (keel-shaped outgrowths) on the underside, and sub-trapezoid (vaguely shaped like trapezoids) heads with small compound eyes. – This has too many brackets, which makes it difficult to read, and not all of them are necessary.
    • For example, using the term "sub-trapezoid" and then explaining it ("vaguely shaped like trapezoids") seems unnecessary; I would just write "heads with small compound eyes that were roughly trapezoidal in shape".
Yes, this flows better. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The part often taking the shape of a spike or otherwise ornamented in eurypterids is additional information going beyond the basic explanation of the term. This is not well placed in a bracket.
Removed this part as it isn't very significant to Megarachne specifically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • hastate (e.g. shaped like a gladius, a Roman sword) telsons (the posteriormost part of the body – suggest to combine these two glosses, otherwise the text is quite fragmented.
Yes, combined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • suggest to write "hindmost" instead of "posteriormost" here and at other occasions in the article. You explain terms in glosses, but use new terms while explaining, which does not help as much with the understanding as it could.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes it can be helpful to skip a term altogether and just "translate" directly.
Yeah, I know. Writing based on research papers lends itself to the finished article becoming very technical. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here and in other parts of the article: with "e.g.", do you possibly mean "i.e."?
Ah, yeah. Changed instances of "e.g." to "i.e.". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • with paired keels (keel-shaped outgrowths) – why not simply "with paired keel-shaped projections", avoiding the gloss? Also, "outgrowths" sounds as it would have been a pathology, maybe "projections", "extensions" or "ridges" is better wording).
Went with your first suggestion, I suppose I wanted to keep the terms used by the eurypterid researchers themselves but keel-shaped projections gets the idea across just as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gzhelian Age – age should not be capitalised.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shear et al. – suggest to avoid this and use "and colleagues" throughout the article.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005, a second, more complete specimen (a part,[n 1] featuring the carapace and poorly preserved parts of the anterior body as well as coxae possibly from the fourth pair of appendages, and a counterpart[6]) was recovered – with the gloss, and a footnote (the only one of the article) explaining a term used within the gloss, it gets quite convoluted. This can be avoided. I suggest "In 2005, a second, more complete specimen consisting of a part and counterpart (the matching halves of a compression fossil) was recovered, preserving parts of the front section of the body […]". The footnote section can be removed then, making it simpler.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid "anterior" completely and just write "front" to improve comprehensibility.
Replaced all instances of "anterior". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selden (2005) concluded that – This paper is not included in the references. Do you mean "Selden and colleagues (2005)"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were part of the same family – link family at first mention
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plant life consisted of pteridosperms such as Nothorhacopteris, Triphyllopteris and Botrychiopsis, and lycopsids Malanzania, Lepidodendropsis and Bumbudendron. – A bit of background seems necessary here. What kind of plants are these, trees?
Yes they were trees; added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This information is under "classification", where its placement in its family and its relation to its other members is discussed. The issue here is that it is quite possible that it isn't distinguishable from related species (it might represent a different ontogenetic stage), apart from some small differences which is noted in that section Megarachne is virtually identical to known parts of Woodwardopterus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Megarachne/archive1&oldid=935828704"