Talk:Megarachne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll take this one. Some preliminary observations first. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• The two fossils depicted appear to be casts of the same specimen (the holotype?), which should be noted.
  • Done.
• You could note in the caption where the model is exhibited.
  • Done.
• I don't think it would hurt to list the specimen numbers of the two known specimens in parenthesis where they are mentioned.
  • Done for the type specimen, the second specimen does not seem to have a species number as it is in a private collection, at least I could not find one in the paper or the supplementary material.

Seems it only receive dits number after being placed in a museum, perhaps say "now accessioned to the Museum of Paleontology at the National University of Cordoba as specimen CORD-PZ 2110"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, changed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• The etymology should also be given in the history section, as the intro should have no unique info.
  • Done.
• There is a good deal of duplicate links (terms should only be linked at first occurrence outside the intro).
  • Done I think.
• Generic names in the source titles should also be in italics.
  • Done.
• This is not so important here as for an FA, but it is best to format author names consistently in the sources, now you mix it up.
  • Tried to make the author names consistent.
• "goliath birdeater (Theraphosa blondi)" Link the first name mentioned instead of the second.
  • Done.
• Add conversions to all measurements.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "continuing uninterrupted throughout the carapace, of the mucrones" Why the comma?

The feature in question was the cuticular sculpture of the mucrones if I read the paper right, the phrase within commas was an attempt at clarifying what "cuticular sculpture" meant. I have replaced the commas with parentheses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "and the subtrapezoid-shape heads" Shaped?

Yeah, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• " similar to other mycteroptids" Maybe say "mycteroptid eurypterids" just for clarity?

Sure. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Known fossils of Megarachne indicate a body length of" I assume this is by reconstructing the tail?

Upon re-reading the paper the body length when reconstructing the tail was actually 54 cm (33.9 cm was the estimate for it if it would have been a spider), I have updated the relevant parts of the article with the actual estimated size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "the holotype was by then deposited in a bank vault" Who owned it?

No idea, I will see if I can find out. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "were compared to the fossil remains" By who?

Specified the paper. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "ontogenetic" Could be defined.

Added definition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the intro could be expanded a bit, it should summarise the article, but there are some interesting facts that are not mentioned. Such as feeding behaviour and the ontogeny stuff. You could also mention that only two specimens are known, and give some physical description.

I added in the sweep-feeding, the ontogeny hypothesis and that it is only known from two specimens in the lead.

• I would move the paragraph that states this was a freshwater animal earlier in the paleoecology section, and then go into the rest of the setting, so our subject and ts direct context has been presented first.

Moved the last two paragraphs of the Paleoecology section to the beginning of the section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Megarachne is an extinct genus of eurypterids." Since all eurypterids are extinct, I would maybe say "Megarachne is a genus of eurypterid, an extinct group of aquatic arthropods", so the unfamiliar reader will easier understand what we're talking about.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The fossils, referred to the single and type species M. servinei" The holotype isn't referred, so I'd just say "of" instead of "referred to".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "and is the most complete eurypterid discovered in Carboniferous deposits in South America" Only stated in intro.

Added it in at the end of the History of research section as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "a second, more complete specimen" Would be good to mention what elements are preserved in each specimen.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• This looks very good to me now, so I'll pass it. Second eurypterid GA in the can! Perhaps a size comparison image could be requested too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wohoo, thanks! That's a good idea, I've left a size comparison request. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)