Talk:Necrogammarus

Necrogammarus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Necrogammarus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 18, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
September 25, 2018	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this as soon as we finish with Hughmilleriidae. Pinging FunkMonk so he can to monitor my actions or suggest something that I do not see. Super Ψ Dro 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you aboard :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking over your shoulder! FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. Let's start. Super Ψ Dro 09:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up; I'm currently on vacation so I will be unable to adress your comments for a few days. I should be able to get onto responding and adressing comments properly by Tuesday or Wednesday next week, hopefully that's okay. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. Have a nice holiday! Super Ψ Dro 22:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back now! Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The Necrogammarus fossil is Late Silurian in age and" It sounds strange to me. Maybe "The Necrogammarus fossil is from the Late Silurian age and"?~~

I think this is pretty correct English. If you for example search "is *insert period* in age" on Google Scholar, you get many papers with that phrasing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it is correct, it does not need to be changed. Super Ψ Dro 12:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link "lobster".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a fragmentary section of a large pterygotid eurypterid in 1986." It would be good to mention by whom.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link "coxae" to the Coxa subsection of the Arthropod leg page.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~"both Ludlow (Late Silurian) in age." See above.~~
"was first described by prominent eurypterid researchers". "was first described by the prominent eurypterid researchers".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link "lobster" again.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the name honoring Humphrey Salwey who had originally discovered the fossil." Maybe add a comma between "Salwey" and "who"?

Probably right, yeah. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"geologist Ben Peach". the geologist Ben Peach.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Define that Diplopoda represents a class.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"(a discrete plate formed by the fusion of the palpal coxae and the labrum)". See above.

Fixed the link here too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and attached palp". and its/an attached palp. I will continue soon.

Went with "its". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"of pterygotid Erettopterus bilobus." of the pterygotid Erettopterus bilobus.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"diagnosed based on features of the chelicerae (frontal appendages), coxae and the metastoma". I think you have to also mention the telson, which would easily solve the Necrogammarus problem.

True. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks good. These were my suggestions. FunkMonk, do you have something to add? Super Ψ Dro 15:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look when the above is dealt with. I wonder if the restorations can be moved to the right, it is generally preferred that the subject of an image faces the text, when possible. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the Erettopterus/Pterygotus images to the right. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know when the specimen was collected? FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do other than at some point during the 1800s prior to 1859. I could expand a bit more on the person who discovered the fossil (Humphry Salwey) based on his obituary if that is relevant, but I am unable to find the year the fossil collected. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to have been described in very old sources, I assume there must be old public domain image sof it that could be used? The text mentions it was shown in an old plate. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will see what I can find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some duplicate linking, perhaps try the script I mentioned in the last review. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"described under the new genus Necrogammarus" With the new genus name? FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"exclusing" Excluding? FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, typo. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, it seems this genus is considered a nomen dubium, but the article doesn't state it. If the sources say so, it should be mentioned. Could then also be placed in category:Nomina dubia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is considered a nomen dubium, haven't seen any of the sources state it and the list we have used for a lot of taxonomic information (link) lists it as valid (and lists nomina dubia separately). In my personal opinion it probably should be a nomen dubium but that's another discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I had to add after the original review, pretty much nitpicks, so good job, both! FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think this would be a pass from me, Super_Dromaeosaurus. Wasn't much to add after your review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for your help. Super Ψ Dro 16:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. Excellent expansion, I did not think it would reach this point. Passing now. Good job! Super Ψ Dro 16:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]