Talk:Eysyslopterus

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Haven't reviewed an eurypterid for a while, so I'll take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• There are a bunch of WP:duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram), you can highlight them with this script:[1]

I only found one that linked to Erettopterus, removed.

• "and Leif Størmer (a Norwegian paleontologist and geologist)" Why not just present him before his name as usual?

I do not remember why I did it, changed.

• Is it known when the holotype was collected?

The original description mentions "in the later years", but does not specify.

• "Kjellesvig-Waering splitted Hughmilleria" Split.

Changed.

• It seems a bit unclear if there is one or more fossils, the intro says "Fossils of the single and type species, E. patteni, have been discovered", while the article body states there is one. Then you also have "The total size of the largest known specimen". This should be consolidated.

I usually copy, paste and rewrite a few sentences from other euryterids articles of mine for the introduction and size section but I did not previously write an eurypterid article known for a single fossil. Fixed.

• "Restoration of the carapace of Eysyslopterus patteni as illustrated by Størmer." Then you should state the same for the other image, and explain the significance of the differences somewhere. Also, give dates and say the images are based on the reconstructions, rather than saying it is them.

Added dates and mentioned that they are based on the original reconstructions. I do not know how to put the significance without looking excessive. What exactly do you mean?

I mean in the description section, for example. Why are there such differences between the reconstructions, and what are the implications? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not know if this point is really necessary and I would not know how to do it or where to include it. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't necessary as such, but you leave the reader wondering why there are two different reconstructions and why they are different. Are they both needed then? To me, it was confusing. Which is correct, and why? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two reconstructions with the sole intention of adding more Eysyslopterus images to the article, because they are already few. I don't know why they are different, Størmer left a picture of the specimen at the bottom of the document, appreciating the marginal rim, which is not even marked in the 1934 reconstruction. I suppose Tetlie and Poschmann wanted to make a more precise one, what makes it correct.

Ok, so I take that to mean that the sources don't explain the difference? In which case, there is not much you can do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, the differences are not stated. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe move the Adelophthalmus image down so it fills the white space instead of being very close to the previous image?

Done.

• "of 22 cm (8.7 in) long." You cna't say "of long", would be "in length" or similar.

Right, changed.

• "only known by one" Known from.

Changed.

• "(and therefore the holotype, AMNH 32720)" and "(AMNH 32720, housed at the American Museum of Natural History) repetitive, you could keep this detail in the history section.

Removed from description.

• "He described it in 1934 as belonging to the genus Hughmilleria, named after Patten" Give the full binomial.

Done.

Doesn't seem to have been done? FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave the full name to Patten instead of H. patteni. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• "who died months later the meeting" Months after.

Done.

• "and the form or position of the eyes" Why "or"? Should it be "and"?

No, because some species of Hughmilleria assigned at that time also had reniform eyes. Should I use "and/or" or something similar?

Hmmm probably fine as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Link Saaremaa at first mention outside the intro.

Done.

• "by Odd Erik Tetlie and Markus Poschman" present them.

Done.

• "was recognized sufficiently differently" Recognized as sufficiently different.

Changed.

• "name is composed by Eysysla" Composed of the word.

Changed.

• "and the other by" Since you said "first part" before, this should say "second part".

Changed.

• Eysysla should also be in italics, since it is a non-English word.

Done.

• "Eysyslopterus has been recovered from Silurian deposits of the Ludlow epoch of the Rootsikula Formation of Saaremaa, Estonia" If there is only one specimen, specify that the single specimen has been discovered there.

Done.

• "of indeterminate osteostracids and thelodontids have also been found" state these are fish.

Done.

• "description of the physical characteristics of the rocks" In this context, you describe the rocks, so it should just be "the physical characteristics of the rocks".

Changed.

• "E. patteni was originally described as a species of the genus Hughmilleria,[3] but it was considered different enough to represent a new separate genus in 2008.[2]" This was jst stated in the preceding section?

It is like that to maintain consistency with other eurypterid articles, although I admit that it seems repetitive with such a short history. Should I change it?

Not a big deal, but it's a little bit conspicuous in a short article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• "In fact, the carapace of Eysyslopterus, Orcanopterus and Herefordopterus were almost identical." Explain why this is significant.

Is that what I added enough?

• "as inferred by Odd Erik Tetlie and Markus Poschmann" You don't need their full names at second mention.

Changed.

• You should describe more than its eyes in the intro, and give a bit of palaeoecological info, so that the entire article is summarised.

Added paleoecological information. I doubt I can add anything more than the eyes since that is the objective of that sentence, to say why it is different from other eurypterids, and practically the main thing are its eyes, since the carapace was similar to other basal genera as the text says.

Well, even if a feature isn't unique, it can be mentioned, just like you do under description. For example, state the length and shape of the head and that it had ornamentation, little things like that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done. Super Ψ Dro 16:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seems there are a bunch of alternative combinations that could be listed as synonyms in the taxobox?

Added. I do not remember seeing another article with subgenus names in the taxobox so I should remove the one from 1961 and leave the one from 1966?

I think every single sombination should be listed there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seems the genus authority is incomplete in the taxobox.

I don't know what happened, added again

• "Restoration of the closely related Adelophthalmus" Seems it is one of the farthest removed taxa in their clade? Maybe just say "related".

Done.

• By the way, I was surprised this article had so few edits, and was created so recently!

I guess the article was never of interest to other users and Ichthyovenator has not focused much on the adelophthalmids except Adelophthalmus.

• Alright, I will pass now, impressive that the article went from nothing to this much in so few edits (maybe the sandbox was used?)! FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I used the sandbox. Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 00:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)