Talk:Herefordopterus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 17:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, looking forward to having a look through this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you again here. Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Lead:

• Referring to the Hughmilleriidae as basal is not really correct. It is the most basal family of the superfamily Pterygotioidea, but the Pterygotioidea is a highly derived superfamily of eurypterids. I would suggest something like this;

"Herefordopterus is classified as part of the family Hughmilleriidae, a basal family in the highly derived Pterygotioidea superfamily of eurypterids. Fossils of the single and type species, H. banksii, have been discovered..."

as a way to rewrite the second sentence of the lead.

Yes, you are right. Changed.

• Maybe mention the place(s?) outside of Herefordshire where it has been discovered (Shropshire, right?) instead of just writing that ...have been discovered in deposits of Silurian age in Herefordshire, England.

Done.

• I think you should mention something that differentiates Herefordopterus from other eurypterids, perhaps talk about how it combines features or Hughmilleria and the pterygotids?

Done.

Description:

• "away from other pterygotioids..." I assume with "away" you mean that it is smaller than these others, I don't think "away" is the right word in this context.

Changed.

• "This size makes it the smallest genus of the entire Pterygotioidea superfamily", Hughmilleria wangi at 6 cm was smaller than H. banksii at 12 cm, perhaps write that it was one of the smallest pterygotioid species and mention some other small ones.

But was not the genus with the smallest maximum size? It is about genera, not species.

I'm not sure if the smallest maximum size of a genus is as relevant as species sizes. You can keep it as it is but I think you should in some way mention that there were smaller species of other pterygotioids, such as Hughmilleria. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• "parabolic to campanulate carapace", "parabolic" and "campanulate" might need explanation. "Carapace" too as this is the first time it occurs in the article.

Done.

• "prosomal appendages II–V" I am aware that this is the terminology used in actual papers but it might be confusing to readers. I believe "the second to fifth pair of prosomal appendages" would mean the same thing and be easier to understand.

Changed.

• "alimentation", used in an explanation, might need explanation itself or perhaps a more simple term could be used.

I think "feeding" is more simple. So changed.

• "appendage VI" see above

Done.

• "type B specimens (that is, males)" I am not sure that type B specimens of eurypterids can be confidently stated to be males. The main Eurypterid article posits that type B specimens are usually assumed to be female. Do you have a source that puts them as male? Eitherway it could be rewritten as "traditionally assumed to be..." instead of a confident "that is...".

In the paper of the description of Herefordopterus (below figure 3) it says it (males sensu). Maybe it varies between genera? Tetlie cites this: [1] In addition, the Eurypterid article cites a website that does not give me much confidence...

Yeah the source in the main article is far from optimal. I'll have a look at the source you've posted here but as far as I can tell type A and type B are clearly different genders but can not be assigned to "male" or "female" confidently. You should put it as "assumed to be males". Maybe you could even link it like this: "assumed to be males" and I'll see what can be done with that section in the main article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Super Ψ Dro 10:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Herefordopterus stands out for its great resemblance to Hughmilleria with derived (more "advanced") elements reminiscent of Slimonidae and Pterygotidae, such as..." maybe "Herefordopterus stands out due to on the one hand having a close resemblance to Hughmilleria and on the other hand possessing elements reminiscent of those in the more derived (more "advanced") pterygotioid families Slimonidae and Pterygotidae, such as..."

Done.

History of research:

• No need to link Himantopterus as it is a synonym of Slimonia which is linked later.

Link removed.

• "now dubiously placed in...", maybe "now tentatively placed in..."

Done.

• "morphology of the male genital appendage" maybe use "Type B genital appendage" instead of "male genital appendage" for the same reasons stated above.

Done.

Classification:

• "...and appendages spiniferous of Hughmilleria-type, but..." I don't think "of Hughmilleria-type" is necessary since the appendages of the two only hughmilleriid genera would obviously be similar. Just "spiniferous appendages" should be fine.

Done.

• "who had 12-13" -> "which had 12-13"

Changed.

• I think a better cladogram could be used as this one is not based on an actual phylogenetic analysis (I used this one in Salteropterus as Salteropterus is never included in proper analyses). Maybe the one I used in Pterygotioidea could be used instead?

Cladogram changed.

Paleoecology:

• This section is very short but I can see that it would be difficult to expand and it does state the type of environment as well as contemporary animals so not sure what else you could add here. Unless you come up with something more this should be okay as it is.

I have no idea what to add.

General:

• Might want to add this article to the "Pterygotioids" category.

Of course.

That should be all I've noted while looking through the article, passing now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)