|Pseudoscorpion was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Former good article nominee|
|Pseudoscorpion has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Arthropods||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
this thing is ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Actually, I find it rather charming. Especially compared to things like dust mites. IronChris | (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Link to References
I know a biologist who has a list of publications concerning pseudoscorpions from 1912 to 2006 on their web site: http://earthworksresearch.com/psuedoscorpion-references-published-from-1912-2006/ Would this be a good link for the reference section of this article? pale 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your link is broken.
Good Article review
I just can't help but think this fails at a key point of the Good article criteria: "(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;" I'm in the third year of a Zoology degree, so was able to follow it, but "The abdomen, known as the opisthosoma, is made up of twelve segments, each guarded by plate-like tergites above and sternites below." is awkward. It would be far better to briefly explain terms here, than to let links handle the definitions.
It could also use a labelled anatomical drawing, but I don't think that's absolutely necessary for GA status.
The second paragraph of the evolution section degenerates into babble: "This is also supported by the advanced nature of that oldest fossil; it has all of the traits of a modern pseudoscorpion, rather than being some kind of primitive transitional stage on its way to developing the features of this group. This is also not-unusual, as many of the very first land-arthropod fossils show advanced terrestrial features, giving the impression that they had been on land a long time, but simply not preserved as fossils up to that time. Part of this would be a result of geological activity; the suitable land areas have mostly become seabeds, or been subsumed entirely into the mantle by continental drift. Indeed, fossils from the very earliest land animals are extremely rare already, for those very reasons; going back slightly farther, mere chance could result in few or no fossils surviving." I presume this is something to do with preventing it being quoted as evidence for creationism? Still, it's disjointed and choppy.
The "Growth" contains very little about growth.
It could, perhaps, use more information about how much variation is found in the order, niches filled, and perhaps particularly notable species or genera, if any. As it is, it's mainly anatomical description.
...As it is, I just don't think this is GA material, though it isn't too far off. I'd be willing to take another look after revisions are made - leave a message on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscorpion on coral reef?
I found this picture, labelled as a pseudoscorpion on a reef, on http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/sertc/. Is it possible that pseudoscorpions inhabit coral reefs, or could it be that the creature was washed off into the sea? So far, no (other) marine arachnids are known... --Crustaceanguy 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this nomination. The biggest issue is that the article is not broad in its coverage. It is also not very well-written. In addition, inline citations are greatly lacking. Some issues:
- Diet and life history should be incorporated into separate sections, as usually they are some of the more important pieces of information.
- Many of the sections and paragraphs are very short and only a sentence or two long. If there isn't much information, try to merge them together.
- The last 3 paragraphs are too short and chop up the structure. Try merging them. Don't forget to cite them as well.
- Evolution and Historical references should surely be expanded. It would be nice if you could find the quote from Aristotle.
OK HERE IT IS: Aristotle Page 2 introduction. http://www.scribd.com/doc/7541095/Weygoldt-P1969-The-Biology-of-Pseudoscorpions?__cache_revision=1230315207&__user_id=-1&enable_docview_caching=1 (If it is blanked yellow, use the search box in the reader and put Aristotle's name in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance may (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Classification is basically a list of classification which sort of chops the article up. Try incorporating it into the article or turning it into prose. If you have the skills, you could even do a table.
I just saw a tiny pseudoscorpion hitchhiking on a house fly. It was a bit tricky to get a good picture of it, but you can see the blurry blob under the fly. Don't know if anyone cares, but I found it amusing. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/732642/klokrypare.png 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Am I missing something here in definition, because to me, that insect is a mosquito... I looked closer, and changed my mind ;)IcehouseCover (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)