Jump to content

Talk:Salteropterus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSalteropterus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSalteropterus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2018Good article nomineeListed
September 25, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Salteropterus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I might as well take up this review, gonna be my first of a eurypterid. The article overall looks good, but it could use more images, but considering the type of taxon and fragmentary nature I don't know what more could be added, maybe a map of the localities for Discovery? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could make a map of the fossil localities, is there some preferred template or appearance for maps to follow? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really I think something like this would be a good resource and reference: https://paleobiodb.org/navigator/ (search Salteropterus and zoom in on England/Wales) or you can use https://sharemap.org to create an .svg image (preferable to .png). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with paleobiodb, but I'm having trouble getting the map creation site to work for me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to nail a map out after the review is mostly done, its not an important point. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • I'll let the description being first slide, its recommended on the dinoproject that the history is first, but idk about here
Discovery first would help with explaining specimen numbers (BGS should be linked) and material completeness
This has been brought up before in one of the other eurypterid GA reviews, but I have in general put description first in these and changing them all back would be quite difficult. There are other prehistoric animal GA:s with description before discovery. Linked BGS at its first mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, the majority of dinosaur articles have description first, so I have no idea how it became a guideline that discovery should be first (a recent addition in any case). Anyhow, I've changed the guideline to state it is optional. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eurypterid should be linked (first sentence)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why/how do the tergites resemble Slimonia
Source simply says that the tergites of Slimonia resemble those of Salteropterus in being rather long, added this in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st para: no need to reference [3] in the middle and end of the paragraph, since there are no other references for the content
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para: Either move the [4] reference to the end of the sentence, or remove the [3] at the end since [3] is references at the end of the paragraph already
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no information from the original description (which isn't even cited) or the description of S. longilabium, which are both probably important. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added from the original description of S. abbreviatus, will add for S. longilabium as well.
The desciption of S. longilabium, Kjellesvig-Waering 1961, is actually already cited, as the citation for the paragraph about it under "history". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • I think it would be best if the first paragraph basically cited Salter and summed up what he thought of the taxon, instead of skipping that rather important part of history
I am having trouble finding the original paper, this should be it but there is not really anything there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find it anywhere. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I located it https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/111474#page/305/mode/1up IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the thoughts of Salter. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (First para) "the specimen used", maybe reword and include the specimen number
The original paper does not specify a specimen number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • years could be linked to their '[year] in paleontology' articles
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preserving several features" maybe just say "preserving an elongate telson that had been unknown to Woodward"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph of fragmentary but delicate fossil preservation would seem better placed stuck on the end of the first paragraph
Moved it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is S. longilabium dubious
Because it is fragmentary and only referred to Salteropterus because of it being similar to the related Slimonia (but not enough to be in that genus) and the only other slimonid that is in the correct area and period of time is Salteropterus. Added a "making its assignment to the genus dubious" at the end of this part of the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can make one, might just be a line drawing of some very fragmentary fossils though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classification:

  • Were no other genera originally within Slimonidae?
Looks like the family at first only contained Slimonia itself, with Salteropterus being assigned later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happene in 1951, Slimonia was described? If so note that
Slimonia was originally part of the Pterygotidae, but reassigned to the Hughmilleriidae in 1951. Added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Salteropterus *first* placed in the family in 1989? Wording makes it seem like Kjellesvig assigned it earlier
Yes, but a close relation between Salteropterus and Slimonia had been apparent earlier, changed the wording a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1968, 1989 and 2004 can be linked like in History
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been any other phylogenetic analyses with it?
None that I could find, it is quite fragmentary and any analysis that includes something slimonid at all seem to settle for just Slimonia. The cladogram is not based on a phylogenetic analysis since none including Salteropterus seem to exist, but rather that the paper cited states that "The characters discussed here suggest the phylogeny of the Pterygotoidea has a topology like this: (Hughmilleria (Herefordopterus ((Slimonia + ? Salteropterus) (pterygotids))))." which is as close as I can get to a phylogeny for the taxon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the species are noted might be good to use their full binomials on the cladogram, some taxa have multiple species
Species were not noted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added some text on why Salteropterus was placed where it is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note on possible diet seems more like Paleobiology than Paleoecology, so maybe rename the whole section Paleobiology? (ecology falls under biology anyways) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • I'm not sure why citations need to be in the lead, all content there is in the article too
True, removed citations from the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "derived from and honors" I'm pretty sure that's redundant, honors is probably better
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the above point, the article should probably use british english since the fossils are from Britain. If you need help with this I grew up using the british spellings
Help with this would be much appreciated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the ones I could notice. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • telson should be linked or replaced with "tail tip"
Linked and added tail tip. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think slightly cropping the main image widthwise would be preferable to the large blank space
Will crop it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it now has a confined width in the infobox so that it does not make it overly long though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it appealing to cite the works noted in the taxon box (eg. "Salter, 1859[5]") so that the paper is associated with the author and date. Helps with finding out more information especially when there are multiple by one author in a year. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think citations for the other mentions would be good too (Kjellesvig-Waering, 1951, Kjellesvig-Waering, 1961 and the second mention of Salter, 1859). It just keeps consistency while helping the reader as much as possible with knowing where things come from. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The city in question is in Scotland, I have no idea how I messed this up. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Kjellesvig-Waering and S. longilabium is from Leintwardine, Herefordshire, England. Not Lesmahagow. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like everything is done. Time to pass :) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salteropterus&oldid=1203722306"