Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Onychopterella/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2019 [1].

Onychopterella

[edit]
Nominator(s): Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first FAC is about this small and ancient eurypterid. I would say that it's somewhat underrated among eurypterids and that it's more important than it seems, I was surprised the first time I saw how much it's known about it... Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. Now it probably needs some reviews by people unfamiliar with these creatures too. One question, since O. pumillus was named all the way back in 1916, might there be public domain images of it to use? FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, there's an image, but if the part in which O. pumilus is seen was cut it would be of very low quality, so I think it's not worth it. Super Ψ Dro 22:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the page? Maybe I can find a better scan somewhere. I think it would be nice to show for variation/comprehensiveness, even at low res, and fit nicely in the paragraph dealing with that species. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here it is [2]. Super Ψ Dro 09:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, don't know if you know or not, but one trick to get higher res images from BDL and archive.org is to just click + and zoom in, then it actually changes to larger images. Just keep pushing + until you get the size you want. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it have very low resolution anyway? In fact, if you press a few more times, you even start to differentiate the pixels... Super Ψ Dro 14:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after maybe the third click, it gets too close. But until then it looks ok, and I think it's good to show for balance, as all the other fossils are kokomoensis. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it, and it doesn't look too bad! Is the alternative description fine? Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, you could of course remove the yellow tint, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could just make it black and white, for example. Either by greyscaling it or turning down the saturation. On the more technical side, you could play with the levels. I can also do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, I don't know how to do those things you mentioned. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, also took the 100% size version; the dots are not pixels, but halftone. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, now it looks much better! Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, I found a better source for the Eurypterids of New York book, and uploaded a higher res version of the infobox image:[3] I think that source could be used henceforward instead of the old Google Books one with its tiny images. Also because I can't even seem to access the Google Books link anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed that this image[4] apparently shows the holotype of Eurypterus ranilarva, which I think is significant enough to note in the article caption, as it is discussed in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, done. Super Ψ Dro 15:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

An excellent article, although I read from the position of a subject ignoramus. As such, I am reviewing this solely on the basis of its prose only.

Description
  • "subquadrate (almost quadrate)" not everyone will understand "quadrate", so it may be as well to do what you have done in the lead and say "(almost square)"
Done.
Research history
  • "American palaeontologists": in several places you give the nationalities of the scientists who have worked on this. I don't think we need to know that, yes, the name and specialism is key, the nationality can be found on the respective articles. (ditto into the Classification section too)
I do not agree with this point. In the only eurypterid FA, Jaekelopterus, nationalities are mentioned. This is also seen in Deinocheirus, Amargasaurus and Tarbosaurus, but not in Lambeosaurus. It looks like it really doesn't matter and both can be used. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE. The nationalities create clutter and add nothing to the knowledge about the Onychopterella. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used to always add it, but recently I have begun to tone it down. I think it can be useful in articles about historical taxa, though, where colonialism might have had a play in how they were discovered, collected, and described. Not as useful for more recently named taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I have removed the nationalities. Another question, is there any English rule that dictates when you can say "paleontologist" and when "the paleontologist"? I say this because I just removed "the" from two sentences. It is possible that the GOCE reviewer who removed most of them missed those two, but I'm not sure. Super Ψ Dro 07:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In British English a definite article is necessary in good, formal writing (such as an encyclopaedia; I always use it when writing here). Without it there is the impression of a false title; good newspapers still use the definite article, tabloids and informal English don't. This article is, I think, written in American English, in which case it's not necessary, but its inclusion isn't 'wrong' either. A slightly fudged answer, but I hope it clarifies things! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoecology
  • Piped link to Wiki dictionary for nektobenthic or translate in brackets?
In fact, this is explained after the comma, I added "that is" to avoid confusion.

Very minor points only and I look forward to supporting. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the answer above! Super Ψ Dro 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

A nice read. Only a couple of quibbles (non dealbreakers...)

  • In 1948, paleontologist Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering recognized Onychopterus as worthy for the generic rank - why the "the" before generic rank? I'd never put it there....? Also I prefer "warranted/warranting" to "worthy" - the latter makes it sound like being a separate genus is "better" somehow....
Done. "Warrantly" sounds really odd so if you want I can change it. Is it fine? Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant something like this. Actually it wasn't that simple. Anyway all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
What do you mean? Where?
For example, look at the first two citations in the Description section: the second one uses {{cite journal}}, while the first is mostly hand-formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed. There's a problem, however. The sizes are mentioned in the supplementary information and I don't know how to cite this, for now I have used "|quote=". Do you know if there are any specific parameters for this? The rest of the references seem fine. Super Ψ Dro 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could use |at=? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then a syntax error appears. It seems that the parameters |at= and |pp= cannot be in a template at the same time. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: a 1912 book won't have an ISBN. Are you meaning to cite a later edition or reprint? If so, citation should reflect that
I had no idea that the ISBNs did not exist then, I have chosen to delete it.
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for journal articles
Done.
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
Done.
Fixed.

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: As this is your first time through FAC, it is customary to require a spot-check of your sources for verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested a check. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: If I'm interpreting your initial checks correctly, it seems that a far more expansive audit of the cited sources against the text will be needed, correct? --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting you need to do it, just wondering in general. --Laser brain (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t go that far, but I am planning on checking 5 or 6 sources, and if these sources also have problems, I’ll check all of them (seeing as there’re only 21, it’s not too many)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-coordinator note
  • Could you add the (subscription required) tag after all those articles which need a log in to access - the scientific journals are (probably) all behind paywalls. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
The size of the species of Onychopterella are mentioned in the supplementary material. I honestly don't know how should I cite a source with it. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "maximum", which is simpler and doesn't say that it's the average size. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate either. Lamsden specifically says his measurements are the maximum size, but the source Braddy 1995 you’re citing says it’s only the measurement of the paratype. Also I feel like we’re missing something because Lamsden says the maximum size for the species is 7 cm and he’s citing Braddy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He somehow omitted the paratype, which is odd. The paratype from what I see definitely represents an O. augusti and there would be no reason to assign it to another eurypterid or invalidate it. It must have been a mistake of Lamsdell. Super Ψ Dro 18:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still wanna say the paratype instead of max size as the source you're using displays no certainty that O. augusti could not have grown more than 14.3 cm. Similarly, you want to specify that 4 and 16 cm are the max sizes for O. p. and O. k.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat against mentioning that the paratype was the biggest there. In the history of research, it is already said that the largest O. augusti was the paratype. If I added it in the description, then shouldn't I explain that the largest O. kokomoensis was not a holotype nor paratype? Super Ψ Dro 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I would've put "the largest specimen of" or some variation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave to the sizes to Slate Weasel make the size diagram, and they are in fact from the supplementary material that I mentioned above. And yes, you are right with the second image, now it's only said that it was published before 1924. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to cite Braddy for O. augusti, now it should be fine. Super Ψ Dro 18:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the only species with considerably large epimera... in the pretelson..." reference is given to Clarke, 1912, but it in the section discussing Onychopterella, I don't see a mention of the word "epimera" nor is the word "pretelson" ever mentioned in the publication   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the third paragraph of the description of O. kokomoensis, it's said "the last segment is produced at the postlateral angles into two short broad lobes with blunt extremities". The pretelson is the last segment, that's why it's called that, because it goes before telson. These "broad lobes" are the lateral extensions used to explain the definition of epimera. I guess these terms didn't yet exist or were very rare, since I don't remember seeing them in old documents, but in ones from the 50s or something like that. Super Ψ Dro 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Put an access date on ref no. 21
Since this source is going to be replaced, this is pointless.
All the other authors are mentioned at least once before this sentence, but Gabbott is first mentioned here.
I wanted to express some surprise but it's not a big deal.
  • ref no. 21 is saying it’s unknown if the Wilhelmi Formation (where O. p. was discovered) was either a peritidal or a subtidal zone, and you should probably cite “Habitat of Llandoverian-Lochkovian eurypterids“ instead of PBDB (which was its primary source)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Should I also replace the 19th reference with its primary source?
Yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO

[edit]

Did a few tweaks to the conversions and image placement, etc. [5] Ran a few auto bots and saw no major concerns. A good read and looks well covered. The reference checks above seem to have been addressed. I Support promotion to Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By they way, the old MOS recommendation that images should be moved to the right at the beginning of a section has long been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why that was. As an encyclopedia, the words should be first...shows how old school I am!--MONGO (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because in some cases, the layout will suffer, so if it is applied as a rule, the outcome will not always be a benefit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! But I have decided to restore the position of the images since that recommendation is gone. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Onychopterella/archive1&oldid=918500856"