Talk:Nanahughmilleria

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Good going on the adelophthalmids! I'll have a read through of this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be waiting. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

General

• I actually don't think you need a collapsable list of species for this one. It has the same amount of species as Acutiramus, which does not have a collapsable list. I think 8 or more species is a good lower limit for collapsable lists.

List removed.

• Maybe "reliable" and "confirmed species" are strange terms for average readers. Maybe better to use something like "species confidently assigned to the genus" e.g. "largest species confidently assigned to the genus".

Added.

• There is some duplicate linking; Siberia is linked twice, as is Parahughmilleria and anterior.

Links removed.

• Just noticed that you refer to it as N. notosiberica in the infobox but as N. notosibirica in the text. Which is correct?

Yeah, thanks for noticing it. It is originally described as notosibirica, so that is the correct one.

References

• The work of Tetlie is referenced a lot but you use a stunning 4 different ways to write his name in your references ("O. Erik Tetlie", "O.E. Tetlie", "Erik Tetlie", "Odd Erik Tetlie"), would be good with consistency (pick one and apply it to all).

Done.

Lead

• The name meaning in paranthesis should be quotations, e.g. "dwarf Hughmilleria", otherwise readers may read it as Nanahughmilleria literally being a smaller variety of Hughmilleria.

Right, done. Super Ψ Dro 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• As previously discussed "small-sized" is really not better than just "small".

Changed.

• There is no description of what makes Nanahughmilleria unique in the lead, which there probably should be. Maybe use a shortened version of the final paragraph of the description somewhere in the lead?

Done.

Description

• "The streamlined form of its body indicates that Nanahughmilleria was an active swimmer adapted to swim crosscurrent" Is there anything specific about Nanahughmilleria's shape that would have made it particularly well-adapted to swimming crosscurrent or is this just a general trait resulting from a streamlined shape (not really something to edit here, just a general question)?

It is not specified. Kjellesvig-Waering described it as a general feature of Hughmilleria. So yes, it is just a general trait.

Okay, good to know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a long, flat piece in the operculum" this is your explanation for "spatulae" but you also bring in another equally hard to understand term, "operculum" here.

In these cases I do not usually describe the second word and describe it in its next appearance (although this time I have forgotten). Could that work?

I'd say it would depend on how long it would be until its next appearance. In this case it would be good to maybe describe it under the same section (which would mean fitting "operculum" somewhere into the description). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Could I replace operculum with genital aperture or something similar? Because I do not remember any paper that describes the generalized Nanahughmilleria operculum as a genus. Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that should work.

Okay, done. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

History of research

• "The chelae (pincers) were small" might be good to specify that this is the normal condition. After all, only a single family of eurypterids had chelae that weren't small (e.g. "As in most eurypterids...".

Done.

• "N. norvegica was the largest species of Nanahughmilleria, measuring 10 cm (3.9 in)" maybe add in somewhere "with the exception of N. lanceolata, which may represent a separate genus"

Done.

• "but other authors do not agree with this" would probably be better to write that some authors don't agree with this and mention these (this?) author's name(s).

Since it is Shpinev who does not agree and is one of the points below, I will try to find who was to describe him better.

I only found what the "E." means. Everything seems to indicate that he is Russian, but I can not confirm it completely. Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That should do.

What? Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As in you have provided sufficient information on him.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood you for a moment. Super Ψ Dro 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The generic name is composed by the Latin word nana ("dwarf") and Hughmilleria" there is no citation for this latin term.

Added.

• "They believed that the carapaces with intramarginal eyes were like that because of the compression" like what? Specify.

I don't know what happened there... Rewrote sentence.

• Would it be possible to find out what the E or S stands for in the name E. S. Shpinev? You have used first names for all other researchers.

I am going to search it.

Only possible for "E.". Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is another usage of "confirmed" species here.

Removed.

• "However, the prosomal and genital appendages were not typical of the Adelophthalmoidea, but probably of the Eurypteroidea" any more info on what in particular is more similar to the eurypteroids than to the adelophtalmoids?

I think there is not.

• Is it possible to find out why Shpinev doesn't agree with the suggested synonymization or why the synonymization (N. schiraensis and Parahughmilleria matarakensis) was suggested in the first place?

Added Shpinev's opinion. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• L. P. Pirozhnikov - might want to find out what the L or P stands for here as well.

I doubt I can find anything since Pirozhnikov does not seem to have been a very prominent researcher, besides that his publications are old.

I'll see if I can find anything.

Paleoecology

• Any information on the paleoecology of N. lanceolata, N. prominens and N. notosiberica?

I have preferred to omit N. lanceolata because it probably does not belong to the genus, N. prominens seems to be the only organism of its location (something strange) and N. notosiberica is not registered in Fossilworks.

As N. lanceolata is probably an eurypteroid and N. prominens is dubious they aren't that important to include here. Would be good to include N. notosiberica though, it might be possible to search for the formation where it was found in Fossilworks and see what else has been found there (as long as they also match up in time range).

When searching for "Torgashino" (where N. notosibirica has been found), only Cambrian records appear, so I doubt that something is possible. Super Ψ Dro 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, should be fine anyway but might be something to consider if you revisit this article in the future to promote it further.

You mean to FA? I doubt that this article can reach that level, I do not think that it has the sufficient quality compared to other eurypterid articles. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, just saying that I don't think it's needed for GA

Last comments

So I couldn't find the first name of Pirozhnikov but I do not think that should bar this from passing. The only issue I found going through this a second time was that using wiktionary as a source for "nana" isn't very good (sourcing wikipedia within wikipedia etc.), you could try either latin-dictionary.net or dictionary.com. Otherwise this should be good to go. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added the definition of "nani" since it is the same but in masculine. Super Ψ Dro 16:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Good, passing now! Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 16:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)