Talk:Bassipterus

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 09:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Will also look through this one once I'm done at Nanahughmilleria. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait! I'll start reviewing this one now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting about this one, should only really be two points left for you to adress now, it's a very well researched article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to make it look as good as possible. Super Ψ Dro 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

General

• You state that Bassipterus is almost completely known, with very few missing body parts. Yet there isn't a single measurement for anything in the article? I'm aware that there was some trouble finding this out but it really needs to be in here.

Actually, the original description is full of measurements, but I did not add them because I thought that talking about a part of the body for a long time would overload the section. Added some measurements. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume there are no measurements for how large a complete specimen would have been?

We have measurements of the carapace, telson and segments 1-9 of different specimens, but not of 10-12. Anyway, it can be estimated that Bassipterus measured around 12 cm but the own estimations are not usually placed in the articles.

Yeah, own estimates fall under original research which is prohibited. A shame that no full size estimate has been published.

• With the genus (species) being so well known (you describe its prosoma, eyes and so fort) it would make sense to have a more "comprehensive" reconstruction of it than its metastoma and swimming leg.

I have been seriously thinking about doing a hypothetical reconstruction based on Parahughmilleria for Bassipterus, but lately I do not have much time to make images and I have in mind to make others before. Surprisingly, there are no more Bassipterus images in its original description and there are not in other documents, so for now nothing can be done.

Very odd considering it is described as being very complete.

Lead

• Is there a source putting its etymology as "Bass wing"? Otherwise I think the correct translation would probably be "wing from Bass" seeing as Bass is a place.

Done. Also changed in Pittsfordipterus.

Description

• "intramarginally" might need an explanation

Done.

• "In a well-preserved carapace (PE 6139) of 15.2 millimeters (0.6 inches) of length" could be rephrased, maybe "PE 6139, a 15.2 millimeter (0.6 inch) long carapace, had eyes [the rest of the sentence]...".

Changed.

• "These were of the long Hughmilleria-type, but in this species, it was serrated along the anterior edge of the sixth to seventh joints." you could explain Hughmilleria-type maybe or say that they were similar to those of Hughmilleria.

Done.

• Is "tail" really the best explanation for "telson"?

It is supposed to be, since although "tail" is more often used for vertebrates, this term is sometimes used in invertebrates such as scorpions.

Fair enough, I usually use "the last segment" or something to that effect but I suppose "tail" works too.

• "The specimen PE 6208 had a telson of 32.5 mm (1.3 in) long" this is grammatically incorrect

Fixed, I think.

Sorry, should have provided a better instruction here, fixed it for you. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• "other relative genera" change to either "related genera" or "relatives".

Changed.

• "The ornamentation in Bassipterus is well known and developed" what does it mean for it to be developed?

I guess it means that it's completely formed. In the original text it read "The ornamentation of this species is exceptionally developed.". Super Ψ Dro 16:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The link used with "assumed to represent females" no longer links right since the name of the section has changed in Eurypterid.

Right, fixed.

History of research

• "They designated B. virginicus as the type species" is unnecessary as B. virginicus is the only species. You could change "Bassipterus was described by the paleontologists" in the beginning to "Bassipterus virginicus was described by the paleontologists" instead.

Done.

• "placed on the genus Hughmilleria" -> "placed in the genus Hughmilleria" or "referred to Hughmilleria"

I opted for the second one.

• You say that the last word in the name refers to the city of Bass, but Bass is the first part of Bassipterus? Also, I don't think Bass is a city.

I think I described "wing from Bass" instead of "Bassipterus"... Changed. Regarding the second, should I say that it is an unincorporated community? Most non-American readers may not know what it is.

Yeah, I think unincorporated community should be fine as long as you link it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done. Super Ψ Dro 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Classification

• "Pittsfordipterus is classified as part of the family Adelophthalmidae" I assume you meant Bassipterus?

Yes, changed.

• "This clade is backed by a pair of synapomorphies (shared characteristics different from that of their latest common ancestor), relatively long and narrow eyes" I think a semicolon (;) is better to use than a comma (,) before you mention the synamorphies in question.

Changed.

• "led authors to synonymize Bassipterus with Parahughmilleria", maybe specify that it's some authors. Also it might better to use "though this" instead of "which" in the part that comes immediately after this.

Done.

Paleoecology

• Overall good, some more complex words could do with quick explanations, notably "lithology" and "subtidal".

Done.

Passing now, good work :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 15:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)