Talk:Pittsfordipterus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 12:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I'll have a look at this one soon. It's quite short so should not take too long to go through. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good. I inform that soon I will upload a couple of images of the genital appendage of Pittsfordipterus and Nanahughmilleria (to compare). Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, I'll wait with starting the review until the images are up then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I just finished them. Thanks for waiting! You can start the review. Super Ψ Dro 16:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• "Pittsfordipterus is classified as part of the family Adelophthalmidae, a derived ("advanced") family and the only clade in the Adelophthalmoidea superfamily of eurypterids" - as Adelophthalmidae is the only thing in the Adelophthalmoidea it might be better to say that it is the only family in the derived clade Adelophthalmoidea or something to that effect, to make it clear that "Adelophthalmidae" is not derived within Adelophthalmoidea as Adelophthalmidae=Adelophthalmoidea.

Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Might be good to link genital operculum to the "genital anatomy" section of Eurypterid or offer a quick explanation as to what it means.

Done both.

• "being Bassipterus its closest relative" -> "Bassipterus's closest relative"?

Done. If I'm not wrong, no "s" is placed when the first word already ends in that letter, right?

Yes, the way you've written it now is correct, sorry. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• adelopthalmids -> adelophthalmids (I've made this mistake a few times as well).

Writing that word well is difficult hehe. Done.

• "from its other more derived brother clades" I think "more derived adelophthalmids" would be better than "its more derived brother clades". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Done.

Description

• "small-sized" is a bit excessive and might not be correct grammar (?), just "small" should be fine.

I probably did that because of one of the comments made in the Hughmilleria review.

• I'm not sure "specimen" needs to be linked but that is up to you.

I think I've exceeded a bit by linking things...

• "eurypterids in general" could be changed to "eurypterids overall".

Done.

• "a specimen that helps on the description" sounds a bit strange. I don't really think "paratype" needs to be explained beyond being linked ("holotype" isn't explained for an example).

I explained it because I think that "paratype" is a less used word than "holotype".

• Might want to explain what the "small irregularly distributed tubercles" are.

I thought about this before but I did not see it necessary, now that I see that it even has an article, I suppose it is a more notable term than I thought. Done.

• "characteristics indicative of Eurypterus" here it would be good to specify that Eurypterus isn't an adelophthalmid and is part of a more basal group, perhaps just "indicative of the more basal eurypterid Eurypterus" or something to that effect.

Good idea. Done.

History of research

• "the position of the eyes more or less similar", "the position of the eyes more or less being similar"?

Done.

• "should be classified to his new eurypterid", maybe instead "should be classified under this new genus", a bit more formal.

Changed.

• "the same person" should be substituted by "Kjellesvig-Waering", it is okay to mention his name several times.

Done.

Classification

• You link to the Adelophthalmoidea twice here which is a bit excessive. I'd remove the second one (e.g. "adelophthalmoids" doesn't need to be linked)

Done.

• Whilst linking "appendage" directly to appendage is by all means correct, I think linking it to arthropod leg would be better as that is more in-depth.

Done.

• "shared characteristics different from that of their antecessor". Whilst "antecessor" is a valid word (in latin though) just writing "latest common ancestor" is probably better as that is likely more understandable to more readers.

Done.

• "three most derived superfamilies of the Eurypterina suborder of eurypterids" the cladogram uses Diploperculata as the higher clade whilst the text uses Eurypterina. Both are technically correct as Diploperculata is within Eurypterina and the three superfamilies in question are the most derived superfamilies in both clades but consistency is good. Either change the text to say the "three most derived superfamilies of the Diploperculata infraorder of eurypterids" or the cladogram to use Eurypterina instead of Diploperculata.

Done. This should be changed in the other articles where this cladogram is used?

Paleoecology

• The Vernon Formation has an article that can be linked to.

It is already linked in the "History of research" section.

Didn't see that, then it's good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• This section is very short, but that is to be expected since this is a single-species genus and an obscure one at that. You bring up contemporary animals as well as what the habitat would have been so unless you feel like there is more to add here to beef it up a bit the section looks good to me.

As in others, I can not find anything else about paleoecology.

Yeah, I think it's comprehensive enough as we're dealing with a single and rather obscure species here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll read the entire article again soon to see if there's anything I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

On a second read-through it looks good! Congratulations on your 6th good article :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)