Talk:Angustidontus

Angustidontus 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.
Review: February 24, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Happy to review this straightforward-looking (but interesting) article.

Thanks for reviewing this article. Here is why I've nominated this article despite not being the author, just to clarify [1]. Super Ψ Dro 14:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for that. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

Unlink the countries in the lead (Canada, Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and large parts of the United States) – see MOS:OL for further information.

Done.

There is usually no need to include citations in the lead section for uncontroversial information such as in this article (see WP:WHENNOTCITE). The ones here can be removed.

Done.

Consider linking evolutionary (Evolution).

Done.

Angustidontus moravicus Chlupáč, 1978 in the infobox should also be mentioned somewhere in the text of the article, where it should also be cited.

Done.

Description

Link crustacean, as this has been done in the lead.

Done.

6 centimeters in length (9 centimeters... – should both be converted using Template:Convert.

Done.

subchelate cannot be wikilinked, so I would include a brief explanation in brackets or as a separate note. Ditto pleonal; gnathobase. It may be worth adding a link to the terms in Wiktionary (use [[w:Example|example]]).

Done. I've added explanations to other terms as well. Is the description now less technical?

This section and those that follow all have many duplicate links, which should be removed (see MOS:DUPLINK, which suggests using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to help to remove them).

Done.

History of research

Chalmer Lewis Cooper should be introduced as a geologist (see https://siarchives.si.edu/collections/auth_per_fbr_eacp855).

Done.

Copeland & Bolton - Thomas Edward Bolton (https://rock.geosociety.org/net/documents/gsa/memorials/v29/bolton.pdf) and M. J. Copeland were geologists and should be introduced with these names.

Done, thanks for taking the time for looking up their full names.

Link gill raker; articulation (Joint; cephalothoracic shield (Cephalothorax).

Done.

noted several times by prominent researchers - several times creates an ambiguous statement and should be avoided. Each researcher noted several times, or the researchers as a group noted more than once?

Rewritten.

(albeit dubiously so) – is confusing, why was it dubious and who thought so?

Rewritten, is it better?

Could for decades be made more precise?

I've removed it, as I found it quite superfluous.

This was not universal however – consider amending to something like ‘This treatment was not universal however’, for the sake of clarity.

Rewritten and added another example mentioned in the source.

Who was Jean Berdan? She should be introduced and linked (Jean Milton Berdan).

Done.

Consider linking worm and sponge, as these words have both common and more scientific meanings, and it is the latter that relevant here.

I've linked worm to the informal article. It is a quoted word in the cited source ([2], page 76). I can also put it in quotes if necessary or just remove it if it's too problematic. Linked sponge.

Classification

Unlink Belgium; Poland.

Done.

Link stalked eyes (Eyestalk).

Done.

Rolfe & Dzik - W. D. Ian Rolfe, Jerzy Dzik (https://scholar.archive.org/work/nu5oh4iyc5efzhnpnd3ocks5qq).

Done.

Gueriau, Charbonnier and Clément – full names needed here as well.

Done.

Unlink Charbonnier.

Done.

Environment

Unlink fish (common word).

Done.

environment. This environment – the prose could be improved here by not putting environment so close to the same word.

I've rewritten the prose. Is it better?

Link taxonomically (Taxonomy (biology)); conch.

Done. "Conch" is already linked.

Just checking – is NMNH 530451 better in italics?

Fairly sure specimen numbers don't go in italics.

References

The formatting style needs to be consistent, so:

Journal of the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists should be in italics;
1960 and 1960 should be in brackets,

etc.

Message me if you would like me to deal this one, it’s not a difficult issue for me to sort, and it would take a while to explain in detail.

I've done lots of changes to the references. I think it's all fine now.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 February to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. The article is technically a little challenging for the average reader, but not too much so. It is definitely on the right track to be a GA.Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with all but two points. Please reply if you disagree with my changes or have any other suggestions. Will be coming back to them in the next few days. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, I may do a little tweaking when I double check before the end of the review. nothing radical will be done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitchell125, I will deal with the two remaining points soon. I wanted to ask you about the dash templates here [3]. Is there any Wikipedia policy recommending their usage? Otherwise I think the en dash character itself would be more appropriate. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where I have amended the references section, it has been done according to the MOS, including the use of dashes. Correctly-formatted references are not critical to GA though, so if you want to, change them. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the templates by characters. Super Ψ Dro 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

All bar one comment sorted, so passing as an well-written GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I'll still deal with that point later. Super Ψ Dro 20:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is addressed. Super Ψ Dro 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.