This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
As always, an excellent piece of work. Just a few trifles to resolve and my suggestions:
The Malacostraca, malacostracans, are the largest of the six classes of crustaceans, containing about 40,000 extant species, divided among 16 orders. Its members display a great diversity of body forms and include crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimp, krill, woodlice, scuds (Amphipoda), mantis shrimp and many other less familiar animals. Wouldn't it be better to write : The Malacostraca is the largest of the six classes of crustaceans, containing about 40,000 extant species, divided among 16 orders. Its members, the malacostracans, display a great diversity of body forms and include crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimp, krill, woodlice, scuds (Amphipoda), mantis shrimp and many other less familiar animals. Just a reorganization with a better look.
I think the sections are not in the proper order. I recommend the sequence : Etymology >> Description (its subheadings are alright) >> Ecology >> Lifecycle (I think it should be two words - life cycle) >> Phylogenetics (subheadings fine) >> Classification.
Link segmentation (or segment), mandibles, maxillules, maxillae, chitinous, hemocoel (even if explanation is there, it's good to have a link here), respiratory pigment, benthic. If no proper links exist, describe on your own.
The same problems exist here as did in the Canidae GAN. Let me point out all the instances:
Some authors advocate placing this in Phyllopoda, a group used in former classification systems, which would then include branchiopods, cephalocarids and leptostracans (Rolfe, 1981; Dahl, 1992; Martin and Christiansen, 1995a; Spears and Abele, 1999). You can just mention a few names along with their identity and remove the years alongside unless you can adjust them in the modified text.
Others regard it as a subclass of Malacostraca. After you have seen to the above point, you could write something like : "With the exception of - names of the aforementioned authors - who advocate placing this in Phyllopoda, Phyllocarida is generally regarded as a subclass of Malacostraca." (My aim here is to omit "Others", which may sound vague and trouble you in FAC.)
Martin and Davis (2001) present the following classification of living malacostracans into orders. We have already discussed much about this in Canidae. I hope you fix it the same way you did in the last article, and remember this while improving articles in the future.
Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean here, particularly the last point? Looking at the Canidae GA Review provides little context. Are you referring to the phrasing under the "Prehistoric Canidae" section? As for the first point, I'd suggest listing just the name, and citing the particular paper, no need for the year. Agree with the second point, it veers into the weasel-word territory. Need to specify who/what studies. Esoxidtalk•contribs 05:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The first point: Here I wish you to properly name which authors, for simplicity and clarity. I too agree that you should remove the years (they are unnecessary and somewhat confusing). Why not say something like Rolfe, Dahl, Martin and Christiansen (that is, name a few authors) advocate placing this in Phyllopoda, a group used in former classification systems, which would then include branchiopods, cephalocarids and leptostracans. But you must remember to provide the full names of Rolfe, Dahl etc. whomsoever you want to cite here, along with who these people are - their identity. Since I don't know who they are, I have written just their surnames here. For example, in Canidae, it was earlier written "Wang (1994)", which seems rather unclear. It may be done in scientific texts, but this is an encyclopedia read by the layman as well. So Cwmhiraeth rewrote it as "Xiaoming Wang, curator of terrestrial mammals at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County". So you see, you've got to do the same here.
The third point: After I have explained so much about the first point, you must now be able to understand what I mean here. Again, who is Martin? Who is Davis? What is the relevance of the year 2001 here? You need to explain all this here as has been done in Canidae. That's why I added a bit about Canidae here.
Hope this helps. Also, thanks for your quick response, Esoxid. I wish to complete the review successfully as soon as possible. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is that better? As it happens, Joel Martin is another curator at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, but I could not identify George E Davis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
They are both at the LA Co. Natural History Museum. Esoxidtalk•contribs 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The situation is much better, thanks to both of you. Now all you need to do is to add who Trisha Spears, Lawrence Abele and George E. Davies are. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)