Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pseudastacus/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2024 [1].

Pseudastacus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an extinct decapod crustacean. Olmagon (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]
  • General comment: avoid two adjacent links per WP:SEAOFBLUE: extinct genus, decapod crustaceans, etc
  • Is there any way we can run this on WP:TFA on April 1st with a picture of Dr. Zoidberg?
Lead
[edit]
  • "decapod" is mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but not in the main body.
  • " Jurassic period of Europe" and "Cretaceous period of Lebanon." of -> in in both places
  • "frontmost" seems like an odd word to me. Maybe "foremost"? Of course, if "frontmost" is the standard term used for this, by all means keep it.
  • "potential evidence of gregarious behavior" I'm not sure "potential" is the right word here. The evidence exists, it's just not clear that it indicates gregarious behavior. Is there a better way to phrase this?
Discovery and naming
[edit]
  • "Fossils of Pseudastacus have been described prior to the naming of this genus" Best to get a grammar expert to weigh in here, but I think you want "had been described". The naming took place in the past, and the describing of the fossils took place before that.
  • "Georg zu Münster erected the genus Bolina" Is "erected" the right word here? I would have thought "proposed", but I'll defer if that's the generally accepted way to say it.
  • "A year later in 1840", I think you can just say, "A year later" and let the reader figure out what the next year after 1939 was.
  • "Münster described several fossils" Please verify this with a native German speaker, but I think it's supposed to be "zu Münster ...", similar to the way von would be used.

That's just a quick readthrough, so I'll just leave this as scattered comments rather than a formal review. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did most of the fixes proposed, though I left these out:
  • "Foremost" seems to refer to rank or importance rather than the physical position so I kept it as "frontmost".
  • I haven't spoken with a German speaker about this yet but in most papers I could find, the man is credited as Münster (without the "zu"). Even his own Wikipedia page refers to him as just Münster when referring to him by surname.
Olmagon (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought, MOS:CVT says "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". That seems like it would apply here. Leaving out the unit conversions would make the text flow better and won't impact comprehension. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the other pages I see about extinct taxa do use those conversions and while I'm not sure if they should now that I've seen that page, I think I'll just leave it for now.
    Also about adding Astacidea to the taxobox, that would be a discussion better held at the Astacidea page to decide whether this rank is significant enough that it should always appear on taxoboxes. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran through this again. Charbonnier & Audo 2020 and Garassino & Schweigert 2006 both mention Infraorder ASTACIDEA. Should that be included in the infobox taxonomy?

Comments by SilverTiger

[edit]

Putting down a placeholder for now. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as I mentioned elsewhere, as a first time nomination, I think this should have been taken through PR and GAN before ending up at FAC. While I don't know enough about crustaceans to make the first qualified review, it looks very short for a genus with multiple species, and like it could need sections about paleoenvironment and so on. And the bullet point list sections could be made into prose. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp I've done my best to expand this article, giving it the Paleoecology section and moved that Species section which was a bullet point list into part of Discovery and Naming. I'll admit it's shorter than the page of a dinosaur named from around that century but fossil crustaceans don't seem to get as much study as dinosaurs (to nobody's surprise). Olmagon (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 20 upper

[edit]
  • The lead is too brief, most FAs have a lead section of 250 to 400 words.
  • The genus itself has been placed into different families by numerous authors, but is currently believed to be a member of Stenochiridae. No need for the word "itself"
  • Members of this genus had a crayfish-like build, possessing long antennae and a frontmost pair of appendages enlarged into long and narrow pincers. Deep grooves are present on the carapace, which is around the same length as the abdomen. First you said "had", then "are", so is this in past or present tense?

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on I'll make some changes soon, I honestly half forgot I was a wiki editor when I went off for Christmas and just remembered I was doing this FAC. Olmagon (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (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/Pseudastacus/archive1&oldid=1199098882"