Talk:Eurypterid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A head's up, responses to comments may be slow until next week for personal reasons, hope that's okay. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah don’t worry. It’s a really well-written article so all I have are a bunch of small grammar things. Are you planning on getting this to FA? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing this reply, thanks! I hope to get either this one or one of the genera that's already GA to FA eventually. Not sure which would be best to go with first. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jaekelopterus would be the best option for FA. Super Ψ Dro 16:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

So first and foremost, I don’t think “eurypterid” is a common name for Eurypterida, it’s just shorthand, so you can either call the article Eurypterida or Sea scorpion (and if you pick the latter, change all “eurypterid” to “sea scorpion”) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's shorthand in the same way "dinosaur" is shorthand for Dinosauria? I don't see why the name of the article would need to be changed, they are referred to as "eurypterids" all the time within and outside of academic papers. I'm pretty sure "sea scorpion" isn't preferred seeing as they weren't actual scorpions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Dinosaur is a common name now and a shorthand, eurypterid is just shorthand (and sometimes an adjective), so it shouldn’t be the article title. It’s either Eurypterida or Sea scorpion. Common names are seldom entirely accurate. But in any case, we should probably save this for last because changing the name will archive the GA review for a day or so User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why it would be necessary and I'd like more than your opinion on it if I'm going to change the name of the article (no offense). But yes, this discussion could be saved for later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles such as Trilobite (instead of Trilobita), Hadrosaurid (instead of Hadrosauridae), Nautiloid (instead of Nautiloidea) etc., so I don't see how this is any different. Perhaps there are some naming conventions out there, but we would need to find them before deciding what to do here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Darriwilian in the late Ordovician or early? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's middle Ordovician. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”...90% of all known eurypterid specimens,” just checking, is it specimens or species? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specimens is correct, it has a lot of species too but there are eurypterid genera with even more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is optional but you don’t need to get so specific with the dates as 3 decimal places, rounding to the nearest number or even tens is enough User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, probably better with just 251.9 anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jaekelopterus one of the largest or the largest? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the largest, rephrased this in the lead.

You wikilink chelicerate twice and neither of them are the first mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linked "chelicerate" at first mention now. I'm unable to find the other two places where it is linked? Ctrl+f and "chelicerat"... doesn't give any more linked uses (except in an image caption). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to say “by eurypterid researchers” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”differently developed, but the same organs as the fangs of spiders” this is optional but you could just say “homologous to the fangs of spiders” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably better. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”relating to gills” is there any way to say this in adjective form? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, english isn't my first language. Pretty sure "branchial" is an adjective form but not sure if there is a simpler one, "respiratory"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

are you trying to say “gill-like”? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You use “gill tract” later in a caption so you could say “...creating a gill tract between preceding...”

Yes, gill tract would be correct, changed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you should be consistent in italicizing German

I think I've italicized all instances of German language now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”The appendages... are fused,” is it supposed to be present tense? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed this one before, changed it to past tense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s off-topic to mention the smaller ones were also formidable predators in the Size section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think it's worthwile to mention. Could it fit better under "feeding"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that’d be the place to do it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the statement. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need “whilst the largest exceeded 2 meters (6.6 ft)” because you go into this in the next paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the chelicerae to body size ratio? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked it up in the source, which just says "If the relative proportion of the chelicerae and body length in Jaekelopterus were as in the closely related genera Acutiramus and Pterygotus (see §1)". Don't know what "§1" is referring to but there is no ratio to be found in the text, the figures or in the supplementary information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article use American or British spelling because I see “meter” but I also see “moulting” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a native english speaker, there is a risk that the article shifts from American to British quite a bit. I was going for American english but there might be words with British spelling here and there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

noted, I’ll change the spelling if I see more British English User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”whilst” is British English, use “while” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all instances of "whilst" to "while". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have parentheses inside of parentheses in the Locomotion section so you should probably use dashes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t use spaces with dashes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed spaces. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”the ventral body wall (the underside of the opithosoma) was the location of the respiratory organs,” note, I like passive voice but nobody else does, so use, “the respiratory organs were located...” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What’s a surface area of cuticle? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here referring to that the spinules would give the organ a large surface area. I've rephrased it, is it better now? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of, “such veins are yet to be found...” and so on, you could just say, “as in related groups,” and the sentence it’s in is a fragment User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed the "though" in the beginning of the sentence which should mean it's no longer a fragment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Strobilopterus picture, do the left and right use the same scale? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do not, added a "not to scale" to the caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of “xiphosura,” use, “horseshoe crab,” and instead of, “pycnogonids,” use, “sea spiders” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done for pycnogonids -> sea spiders but not for Xiphosura. Horeshoe crabs are on of several groups of xiphosurans (the only living one, but one among many either way). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say whether they were direct or hemianamorphic developers is controversial but then say point-blank they were direct developers

Meant to say that it had been controversial in the past, does that now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Most, if not all, eurypterids are thought to have been carnivorous,” seems unnecessary with the sentence after User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, removed the first sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly explain what stereoscopic vision is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Eurypterids, lacking these specialized appendages...” didn’t only derived Pterygotioidea lack the appendages? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was meant to say "other eurypterids", referring to those groups that did not have enlarged frontal appendages. Fixed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

instead of saying “appendages” in the Feeding section, use “spines” or “claws” depending on which you’re referring to User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Appendage" refers to the entire limb, "spines" and "claws" are already used where applicable? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Though a potential anal opening has been reported from a specimen of Buffalopterus,” how does this statement contradict the next statement? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to put in the location the opening had been reported from, the statement should make sense now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”further reinforcing the idea that some eurypterids may have been cannibalistic,” seems redundant. You should probably just merge those two sentences about coprolite into one User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which sex has a larger size and more ornamentation? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Males appear to have been larger than females. I'm not sure if there is a consistent "rule" in regards to the ornamentation and if there is I have been unable to find it thus far. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna quickly explain what demersal means User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolutionary history section seems to also serve as a Paleobiology section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I'm not sure if paleobiology information could be separated from it in a good way, can't evolutionary adaptations (e.g. biology) be covered in evolutionary history?

"The group saw elevated extinction rates during the Frasnian (extinction of four families) and Famennian (extinction of five families) stages," seems unnecessary considering you already said Late Devonian extinction User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth mentioning that not all families died out at the same time but yes, I missed that the Late Devonian is just composed of the Frasnian and Famennian. I've rephrased it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The decline occurred chiefly in marine groups, which primarily impacted the eurypterine eurypterids," you already said this User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't previously mentioned that the eurypterines were the most affected, rephrased to be less repetitive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use Frasnian and Famennian instead of Late Devonian? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explained above, changed to "Late Devonian". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of agnathans you can use jawless fish User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should move the "Only three eurypterid families" part to the Carboniferous and Permian section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What new niche did the mycteroptid occupy? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same niche as the hibbertopterids. I must've mixed up Hibbertopteridae with Hibbertopteroidea (a frequently used synonym of Mycteropoidea, to which both families belong). Fixed this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Limulus, use Atlantic horseshoe crab User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain paraphyly User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus

I would like to add some suggestions about the article.

~~The meaning of Eurypterida is only mentioned in the lead, it could also be placed somewhere in the "History of study".~~ Super Ψ Dro 16:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, added the etymology of Eurypterus (since it's the same). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gigantostraca could also be discussed somewhere.~~

Gigantostraca is strangely obscure and appears to be synonymous with either Eurypterida (as commonly stated and probably by its original definition) or "Merostomata" (as per the 1912 The Eurypterida of New York) depending on the researcher but I will see what I can track down. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantostraca is now discussed under Classification. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could add something else in the History of study, which ends in 1912, it is too early. Perhaps you could say something about the revision of Stylonurida by Kjellesvig-Waering of 1966 or about the revision of the whole order by Tollerton of 1989?

I added major post-1912 studies under Classification with those relating to internal relationships being discussed under Internal relationships. The 1966 revision of Stylonurida would probably be better discussed in Stylonurina. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry for not noticing before.

I am surprised that the article lacks a section of paleoecology with the multitude of documents that speak about it. From what I see, a section like that is not usually used in other articles of this taxonomic range. But why does this happen?

Pretty sure Paleoecology is generally left out of higher-level taxa articles since in many cases an entire order of animals will have very divergent and ecologically unique animals within it and it would be more appropriate to discuss ecology in the articles of families or individual genera. There is some discussion on ecology under Evolutionary history and Feeding.

Okay then.

As a drive-by comment, I just came across a photo of an eurypterid trackway on Flickr[1], and thought it would be pretty interesting to show and discuss such in the article? And perhaps name-drop some ichotaxa, such as Palmichnium. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you could mention some ichnotaxa. Super Ψ Dro 18:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Hibbertopterus trackway discussed pretty in-depth under Locomotion and some discussion on information inferred from a Mixopterus trackway as well. We also have images of the Hibbertopterus track (1) that could potentially be used. I will see if I can find stuff to add on Palmichnium and other ichnotaxa, in case the new Palmichnium image could also be used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the file that Palmichnium is the largest known track maker, so that seems it would be notable... FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember reading something about over one meter (or even two). Speaking of ichnogenera, I have been investigating a little Palmichnium and there is a lot of information available and I would be interested in expanding it in the future. FunkMonk, is there any GA about ichnogenera or any expanded article that can serve as an example? The most comprehensive thing I have found to date is Grallator. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our ichnotaxon articles are all a mess... So whoever takes it up will create the standards, hehe... Jens Lallensack is an expert on dinosaur tracks, maybe he has some ideas on structure (though it is of course not the same)... I wrote a bunch of ichnotaxon history stuff for the Dilophosaurus FA, maybe it can be of use. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That only motivates me more! Thanks, I'll take a look. Super Ψ Dro 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No clear idea how to write such an article; I would say: Just go ahead and try! I would be happy to have a look when its done, just let me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a new additional paragraph on fossil trackways and ichnogenera (all three eurypterid ichnogenera are mentioned as well) under Locomotion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I do not see anything else to fix or add, everything depends on Dunkleosteus77. Super Ψ Dro 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also wonder if it would be correct to include another image of a stylonurid appendage VI to make a comparison with the swimming leg of Bassipterus.~~

Could be good to have, yes. Do we have any images in the same style of an appendage VI in any stylonurine though? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember if we have but this would be very easy to do and I could take care of it. Do you have any preference? Super Ψ Dro 19:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice! Might be good to go for something with reference images already in our image archive or with easily findable reference images elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So looks like a discussion on ichnotaxa is the only thing left User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I haven't had much time to write one yet but I should be able to this weekend or early next week. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is it! I selected Parastylonurus ornatus. I can remove some space if you want. Super Ψ Dro 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I've added it to the article. Yeah, maybe it could be cropped just a little bit more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Now the article looks good for me, only needing the ichnotaxa. I cropped it a bit more. Super Ψ Dro 21:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, pinging, the ichnogenera comments have been adressed, are there any more changes necessary? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say largest eurypterid trackway, do you mean longest or it has the biggest footprints or it’s the widest? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unsure, it's simply referred to as "the largest". It has the biggest footprints for sure and might be the longest (though as far as I can find a large portion of the original find is now lost). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”the largest eurypterid trackway known” seems to imply it’s the longest stretch of eurypterid tracks, so if you’re not 100% sure of that, you should change the wording to mean something you are 100% sure of User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]