Jump to content

Talk:Parahughmilleria/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this one in the coming days. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are the reviewer. We'll see what comes out here ;). Super Ψ Dro 20:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this started :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Lead:

  • The lead is pretty short and could be more informative. Information you could add would be that it was small for an eurypterid, one or two features that are particular to only Parahughmilleria, etc.
Added first discovered fossils, features and that is a small eurypterid. Super Ψ Dro 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest species was P. major at 12.5 cm (5 in), although it has been suggested that it and P. hefteri may represent one only species". I think "may represent the same species" would sound better.
Done.
  • The article should say what it's name means. It clearly means "near Hughmilleria" as "para-" means "near" but you will need to find a source that explicitly states this too.
Would Wiktionary serve?
Unsure. @FunkMonk: is there a presedence for when the name meaning is easily discernible but not explicitly put forth in any source?
It has been accepted before that etymologies are sourced to dictionary entries of the compound words. See for example "nasicornis" in the Ceratosaurus article. The ping didn't work, by the way, I saw this by chance when looking at this page... FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that it didn't work. Would Wiktionary suffice or would Super Dromaeosaurus need to get a published dictionary to source? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis are not reliable sources in themselves, so it would have to be something more authoritative. There must be some online dictionaries? As for the ping, they don't work if they are added to a comment that has already been published. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a dictionary that has been used more widely in articles or more reliable than the rest? And you just revealed me because a user never read my message from over a year ago. Super Ψ Dro 23:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a word as common as "para", you can probably use the dictionary.com definition:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I do not cross out the comment so that the Ichthyovenator can comment on the change. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. As far as I have understood the lead should not contain any information not found elsewhere in the article though, so you will need to add it somewhere in the article as well. Maybe in the first sentence of the second section under "History", "In 1961, Kjellesvig-Waering erected the genus Parahughmilleria (meaning...)". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 18:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • "Like the other adelophthalmids" -> "Like other adelophthalmid eurypterids". All readers will not be familiar with what an "adelophthalmid" is. Also link "adelophthalmid" and "eurypterid".
Done.
  • "although it has been suggested that these species conform different ontogenetic stages (different developmental stages of the same animal throughout its life)". I think "form" would be better than "conform" and you could add "off each other" at the end of the sentence.
Done.
  • "If so, the smaller species would be..." -> "smallest species" works if there are two as well.
Another stupid error... Done.
  • "which is probably its main characteristic". Probably sounds a bit uncertain, the papers should make clear what the main characteristic of a genus is?
I suppose it was since the derived adelophthalmids were very similar to each other and the position of the eyes determines whether they are basal or derived. Kjellesvig-Waering also used this feature to assign P. bellistriata and P. maria to the genus.
  • The last paragraph of the description has several terms that many readers would likely have no clue as to what they mean. Explain "spinosity", "spatulae" and "operculum" in the text.
Done. Is this what you had in mind with "spinosity"?
"Spinosity" is fine, I think Spatulae and Operculum could be more descriptive though as they are specific body parts in eurypterids and the current descriptions are very general. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. It's fine now? I really do not know how to define them, especially spatulae. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks fine now! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of research:

  • "regularly rounded and with subparallel lateral margins with crescentic and subcentral eyes" this is a very technical sentence that could use some more explanations. You could link "lateral" to the "anatomical terms of location" article and perhaps explain what you are referring to with "crescentic and subcentral eyes". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified the sentence.
  • "This contraction is present in adult specimens of several species of Eusarcana" would that not mean that it is not necessarily indicative of a "immature condition"? Also you could add "another eurypterid" in front of Eusarcana to establish its relevance here, e.g. "...several species of another eurypterid, Eusarcana" or something similar. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that it is an indicative in that single species. I'll look more about this. Added Carcinosoma scorpioides.
I meant that you could specify that Eusarcana was an eurypterid since this was not really apparent from the text (changed it myself, hope you dont mind). The addition of Carcinosoma is good too. Awaiting if you find more on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, thanks for changing it! With regard to the contraction, I'm confused, it has to be a characteristic of the species or of Carcinosomatidae. I think it would be better if you go to read the text quoted to give your opinion. He start talking about the contraction on line 27, the link leads to the page where E. maria is described. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the text now with what it looks like the paper is saying to me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That they were protuberant.
  • "described another species, P. bellistriata, and assigned it to the genus Hughmilleria". It would have been H. bellistriata at the time then. You could say that he described a new species of Hughmilleria, H. bellistriata, that would later be reassigned to Parahughmilleria. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think the last part is not necessary since that is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done. It's okay like that?
Yep, looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this species has been raised to the genus level since then under the name of Pittsfordipterus" -> "but this species has since been raised to the genus level under the name Pittsfordipterus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
  • "All these differences can be explained by ontogenetic stages, that is, different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life". Is it possible to get more information on how exactly they can be explained through ontogenetic stages or does the paper not go into more detail? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the document does not go into detail. The most important thing that it says is that in order to determine if both species are synonyms or not, a restudy of all known material is required.
Yeah, the study in the eurypterids seems to have reduced after resolving the phylogeny of the most basal eurypterines. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Republic of Khakassia" is a state in Russia, you could write it as "Khakassia, Russia" instead, I think more readers would understand sort of where it is then without having to switch article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I do not see it necessary but I will do it shortly.
Done.

Classification:

  • Looks fine as far as I can see. Maybe you could follow the suggestion I got in Pterygotus and add an image of a related genus, maybe Adelophthalmus as it is particularly closely related? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Paleoecology:

  • "As Jaekelopterus and other eurypterids, Parahughmilleria probably wandered in and out of the lagoon". Could do with a "some" between "other" and "eurypterids" as many probably never spent any time in lagoons. Also "the lagoon" -> "lagoons" as you are not referring to a specific single lagoon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
  • "the osteostracid Hemicyclaspis or the thelodontid Logania". Surely it should be "Hemicyclaspis and the thelodontid Logania" or is there a question if the remains belong to one or the other? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant that there were also indeterminate species of Logania, I changed the word to "and".

The article now looks good and complete to me and I can't find anything else to comment on. Passing now, congratulations on another good eurypterid article! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! I wish you luck in your other nominations, let's hope they pass too ;) Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parahughmilleria/GA1&oldid=851327776"