Talk:Hynerpeton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

Do you really need the word "endochondral" in the lead? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would personally say yes. The endochondral shoulder girdle is a specific portion of the shoulder girdle including the bones surrounding the shoulder joint but excluding those on the chest (the interclavicle, clavicles, sternum, etc.) Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to explain that in-text in both the lead and body User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that defining it as "consisting of the cleithrum, scapula, and coracoid, all connected into one shoulder bone" is suitable for the introduction, but I have elaborated on the definition of "endochondral" in the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The cleithrum is fused to the scapulocoracoid, unlike in most tetrapods, but the shoulder girdle is independent of the skull," you're gonna have to explain a little what those big anatomy words mean User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a bit complicated. The cleithrum is a kind of rod-like bone of the shoulder girdle which rests on the anterodorsal edge of the scapulocoracoid. The scapulocoracoid is a plate-like bone which separates into the scapula and coracoid the closer you get to true tetrapods, and it includes the shoulder socket along its rear edge. I've tried to dispel some confusion by giving detailed explanations in the description and wikilinks in the intro. That's the problem with anatomical jargon in general, it's hard to explain these kinds of things within one sentence. And spending too much space with the explanations distracts from the main point, which is that the shoulder is intermediate between tetrapods and fish. I'm afraid that the point will be lost with complicated paragraph-length explanations. That's why I shifted those into the description to let the intro work as sort of an "abstract" or "summary", where the important details can stand on their own without distraction. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the cleithrum, say, “rod-like bone of the shoulder girdle,” and scapulocoracoid, “which connects the arm/shoulder/shoulder girdle to the shoulder blade/scapula” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've attempted a fix. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably say it was found in Hyner User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I assume it's just as important to put it in the intro as in the history section? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, don’t just leave it at it was named after Hyner like we know what Hyner is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should say who Edward Basset is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to put Hynerpeton lens in quotes if that's the name User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you're getting at with Jenny Clack User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She's simply a particular paleontologist who expanded the list of Hynerpeton fossils in 1997 before subsequently trimming it down in 2009. I'm trying to establish that the holotype endochondral shoulder girdle is not the only fossil that has ever been assigned to the genus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should clarify that Clack is referencing Daeschler‘s study User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely follow. Clack referred several fossils to Hynerpeton independent of Daeschler, and they were removed from the set when Clack, Daeschler, and Shubin had a closer look in 2009. Why do you think that Clack was referencing Daeschler when she referred the fossils to Hynerpeton? Daeschler made no mention of skull bones or scales in his 1994 study. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to say it more or less exactly like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hope it looks good now. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I think I see the problem. You say "...but in many cases, these assignments were reverted. For example..." so now it looks like you're gonna talk about an example of a reverted assignment when you really talk about the reversion in the next paragraph. The portion "Some of this material has been assigned to..." to the end of the section should be one paragraph so it's all read together, so I'll just do that for you and pass the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been tremendously helpful, thank you for the review. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd and 3rd sentences of Description belong in Classification User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually originally wanted to have those sentences in the intro, since Classification already has a bit of an explanation for the phrasing. Would that be fine instead? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine, but mention stegocephalia in Classification User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, I've put in some more sources as well. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does endochondrol mean? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the portion of the shoulder girdle which ossifies from cartilage instead of skin. Functionally speaking, it's the portion of the shoulder girdle containing the scapula, coracoid, and cleithrum, but not the clavicles and interclavicle. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should use that second sentence as the explainer User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean word for word, "the portion of the shoulder girdle containing the scapula, coracoid, and cleithrum, but not the clavicles and interclavicle," because the one you just put up is confusing and uses a lot of unnecessary big words. If you can keep it simple, keep it simple, because the only people who will understand the current explainer are the people who already know what endochondral means User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you make a fair point. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you just switch to "shoulder bone"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Endochondral shoulder girdle" is a bit of an unwieldy phrase, so I wanted to establish that I didn't want to keep using it throughout the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should stay with endochondral shoulder girdle because a reader’s not going to read the article in order most likely so it’s gonna get skipped and cause more confusion than save User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, plus I didn't use "shoulder bone" as much as I expected anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to reference Nobu Tamura in the caption since credit is already given at the Commons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This brings me back to a complex discussion about when an artist is notable enough to have their art named in the caption. I personally think that NT qualifies as notable, though that's just my personal opinion. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of the Classification section needs a ref at the end User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to find something, it's a very general phrase. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added a few good sources on the topic. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "The Red Hill site is important for finding the answer to the question of why terrestriality evolved in stem-tetrapods," is entirely relevant User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people would beg to differ, including the paleontologists working at the site. The discovery of the Hynerpeton and the rest of the Red Hill fauna was a major leap forward in understanding the origin of tetrapods.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it belongs in the History section then User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a similar sentence to the History section and re-worded the phrasing in the paleoecology section. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal preference: do you want to add a mention of Walking with Monsters? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough question. While it is true that WWM has a huge impact on the general public's perception of this creature, there isn't really a good place to mention it, and it would be hard to describe its role in an objective and/or well-sourced manner. It is my personal preference to abstain from mentioning WWM, unless you think that there would be a way to do it while avoiding the issues I have mentioned. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You create a new section called "In pop culture" or something similar, and say something like "Hynerpeton was featured in the episode "Water Dwellers" of BBC's Walking with Monsters," and beyond that, you could choose to either end it right there or give a really really quick summary of the plot line, then cite the episode using {{cite AV media}} User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard, most people in WikiProject Paleontology aren't fans of those "Pop culture" sections, except for extremely popular taxa such as Tyrannosaurus. And I don't blame them, it's mostly just pandering to people who prioritize popular documentaries and don't really care about the fossils themselves. And I like Walking with Monsters. I would be doing more justice in mentioning how Hynerpeton has been discussed by National Geographic, NOVA, and Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" rather than bringing up WWM. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can do those too, but it's completely optional User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]