Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megalograptus/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [1].

Megalograptus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a large and strange prehistoric sea scorpion. The article has gone through a GA review and a peer review, though both were quite brief. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Super Dromaeosaurus

[edit]

Nice to see we're getting back on getting eurypterid FAs after so long. I have been reserving myself for the FA nomination of this article. Here are my comments. I'll leave the lead for the end.

Description
  • Remove the space between the description section and the coloration subsection
I don't know what you mean here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you understood in the end as I see you removed it. I've removed the other unnecessary spaces to not have the same point brought three times in this review. Super Ψ Dro 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which ranged in length from 49 to 78 centimeters (1 ft 7 in to 2 ft 7 in)" add the parameter "|abbr=off" to the convert template, this is the first time inches and feet are used in the article and "centimeters" is not abbreviated.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the other convert templates, I think everything should be abbreviated.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. ohioensis was the second largest megalograptid, and the second largest Ordovician eurypterid" remove the comma
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy (2009)" I don't usually see years in parentheses in Wikipedia articles to refer to a study. I would prefer an alternative, but this is optional.
Replaced with an alternative. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils" I'd link ornamentation.
Link to what? Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To Biological ornament. Super Ψ Dro 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The massive size estimate for M. shideleri was based on two fragmentary tergites (upper portions of segments)" I'd link segments here too.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scales can vary in size across the bodies of megalograptid eurypterids, and one of the relevant tergites not being longer than 3 centimeters (1.2 in), suggesting that M. shideleri did not reach lengths of more than 56 centimeters (1 ft 10 in)." The prose here is a bit strange. I suggest "The fact that scales can vary in size across the bodies of megalograptid eurypterids and that one of the relevant tergites of M. shideleri was not longer than 3 centimeters (1.2 in) suggests that this species did not reach lengths of more than 56 centimeters (1 ft 10 in)."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images in the description section are on the right. My screen is wide, so the infobox pushes the size diagram and body diagram a little lower than where they should be. Maybe move the size diagram and the life restoration to the left, to have some more variety.
You're not wrong here but the reason the size diagram and the anatomical diagram are both on the right is to avoid MOS:SANDWICHING, if I put the size diagram on the left there is sandwiching with the infobox and if I put the anatomical diagram on the left there is sandwiching with the size diagram. I've moved just the restoration. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The carapace (head plate) of Megalograptus was approximately quadratic" maybe define quadratic.
IMO "quadratic" is well-established enough to not need explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly an adaptation towards digging in the mud" "for" could replace "towards" here.
Yeah, replaced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The compound eyes of Megalograptus were medium-sized and kidney-shaped" do Carter and Kjellesvig-Waering use "reniform" here? If so, I believe it is better to mention this word and put "kidney-shaped" in parentheses.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the appendages" link appendages.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The appendages of Megalograptus, about 3.5 times the length of the carapace were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace, significantly larger than those of Mixopterus." but a comma between the words I bolded.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediately preceding the swimming paddles" I'd put in parentheses "the sixth and last pair" after "swimming paddles", but I see you specify this later, so you can skip this, although I believe it would be better to mention this at the first mention of the swimming paddles.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it was usually cordate (heart-shaped) in shape" the word shape is mentioned repeatedly in the text, so remove "in shape" in this sentence.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most unique feature of Megalograptus was the structure formed by the telson" link and define telson.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also use in the lead the same definition of telson you used in the description. Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two paired and rounded blade-formed lobes, so-called cercal blades" I'd rewrite it to "two paired and rounded blade-formed lobes, the so-called cercal blades".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In other eurypterids, the telson tends to be undivided segments in the shape of paddles or spikes" this sentence is a bit unclear.
Rephrased. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some fossils of M. shideleri, the fossils retained their original coloration with no replacement having taken place" what does replacement mean here?
It means that the fossilization process had not distorted the color of the original material. For an example, the Tyrannosaurus skeleton Stan is brownish-black but that's not the color the bones would have had while Stan was alive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detail more on this in the article. I think most people wouldn't understand without an explanation. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explantion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more fluid, rewrite the sentence to: "In some fossils of M. shideleri, the fossils retained their original coloration, with no replacement having taken place (this meaning mineralization during fossilization did not distort the original color scheme [of the fossils])". I added a comma between "coloration" and "with" to stress more that the explanation is for that part of the sentence. Between square brackets is something I would add but that you can chose not to. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. shideleri was brown, with scales varying in color from dark brown to black and the integument (i. e. the scales) being of a lighter brown color." I think "i. e." is not supposed to have a space in between, see List of Latin phrases (I).
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coxae (base segments of the appendages) were dark brown, with black scales and black gnathobases ("tooth plates")." I know this is a hard and nitpicky point, but I wonder if there would be a way of leaving it more clear for readers that the gnathobases were very close to the mouth. As it is now, I believe the sentence is too vague and many readers might not realize or imagine what the gnathobases are.
Made an attempt. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but I'd remove the comma in "'tooth plates', surrounding the mouth". Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the appendages of larger specimens, including the spiny and large forelimbs, were almost entirely black in color, with black spines, but in smaller specimens the appendages were typically lighter in color." maybe make this sentence more fluid this way "Most of the appendages of larger specimens, including the spiny and large forelimbs, were almost entirely black in color and with black spines, although in smaller specimens, the appendages were typically lighter in color."
Used your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same you did in "According to James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy (2009)" at the caption of the restoration of Megalograptus. Maybe also replace "&" with "and" here as I usually not use it outside the infobox but that's up to you as I've seen it in other paleontology articles.
I rewrote the entire caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first time I read this article and Megalograptus is very interesting! I had never thought that eurypterids could be hairy. I'll continue with the comments tomorrow. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in! Megalograptus is a surprisingly weird one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History of research
"The M. welchi type material" is not wrong (see same way to phrase this in Acanthopholis and Melanorosaurus), but your suggestion is more common, so changed to that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miller mistakenly believed the fossil material, consisting of a postabdominal (segments 8–12) tergite and two fragments of an appendage, to represent the integument of a graptolite" define graptolite.
Defined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change it to "(a member of Graptolithina, an extinct group of colonial pterobranchs)", but not fully necessary. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave it the genus the name Megalograptus" either remove "it" or "the genus".
Removed "the genus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name derives from graptolite fossils typically preserving like strokes of a pencil in the rocks." maybe rewrite this sentence to something like "The name derives from graptolite fossils, which typically preserve marks similar to the strokes of a pencil in the rocks."
Used your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fragmentary fossils of M. welchi were initially recovered by L. B. Welch" are you able to find the full name of this person?
No. The paper also gives no details on his occupation. He might have been a private fossil hunter, which would make it doubtful if finding his full name is possible at all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruedemann instead recognized the M. welchi remains as eurypterid fossils." "the remains of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruedemann's suspicions were confirmed in discussions with August Foerste and Edward Oscar Ulrich who also agreed that the fossils were of a eurypterid." comma between bolded words.
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foerste recognized Megalograptus as similar to the other eurypterid Echinognathus clevelandi" Foerste was mentioned in the last sentence, so replace his surname here with "he". Also, make the link of Echinognathus cover the specific name as well.
Done and done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The M. welchi type material was compared to the new fossils by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering" "The type material of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though only in the "walking legs" (i.e. the legs other than the swimming paddles)" chelicerae don't have walking legs, so specify appendages 2–5 have them.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which it didn't in M. ohioensis" "did not".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spine-shaped ultimate joint is blunt and thick, whereas it is slender in M. ohioensis" change "is" to "was" in both cases.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. shideleri was named based on fragmentary fossil specimens recovered from the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio and in Indiana, originally by William H. Shideler" add a comma after Ohio and either remove "originally" or rewrite the part of the sentence to "originally found by William H. Shideler". Perhaps the whole sentence could be rewritten to "M. shideleri was named based on fragmentary fossil specimens (originally) found by William H. Shideler in/from the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio, and in Indiana." By the way, is the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio, but in Indiana, or are we talking about M. shideleri's fossils?
Went with your suggestion. The Saluda Formation is in both Ohio and Indiana, and according to the paper M. shideleri has been found in both states, though no specific location is specified for Indiana (as it is for Ohio (Oxford)). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whom the species was named in honour of. M. shideleri differs from [...]" After "of", I didn't see the period probably because M. shideleri was mentioned next to this word and I kept reading a few more words until I realized the sentence had ended. This is maybe my fault, but maybe the sentence could be rewritten so that another word and not "of" is the last.
Rewrote the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change "Shielder" to "him" at "The species is named in honour of Shideler", to avoid repetition. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The species is named in his honor" which I think works better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. ohioensis in having a much less developed second tooth on its gnathobases and having a greater number of denticles." where are these denticles? On the tooth or on the gnathobase?
On the gnathobases. Rewrote and also fixed an error. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The M. shideleri fossils could not be compared to the M. welchi type material" "the fossils of M. shideleri could not be compared to the type material of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered in the Waynesville Formation, near Clarksville, Ohio by Carrie Williams" add a comma after Ohio.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whom the species was named in honour of. M. williamsae differs from M. ohioensis in its cercal blades," this time I only read "M. williamsae" before realizing :D. I propose changing to "whom the species name honours". This can also apply to the point above.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species name alveolatus referenced 'the very pronounced development of the alveolar processes surrounding the spines'" up to this point, you've used "" instead of '', so you should stick to one. Also, I assume you quoted the meaning of the specific name because you couldn't understand it (sorry if not the case). I also don't, but after searching the definition of "alveolar" on Wiktionary [2], I think it means something like hole. Does that help you in any way? I am still confused as I still don't understand the morphology of Megalograptus' appendages, but you might have a better idea.
Went with exlusively using ". Yeah, I have no idea what the rationale for the species name means. Not sure the wiktionary definition helps. In humans, the alveolar process is the thickened ridge of bone that contain the tooth sockets, so I was thinking that maybe in this case it means a thickened ridge surrounding the spines? There's very little to go on here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the fragmentary status, M. alveolatus has had a complex taxonomic history." change "the" to "its" or rewrite to "Because of the fragmentary state of its fossils" (I like this one more).
Used the second suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Kjellesvig-Waering initially believed that it might have been a species of Mixopterus, tentatively designating it as 'Mixopterus (?) alveolatus'," same here, chose between using "" or '' and apply it in all cases on the article. Also, when did Kjellesvig-Waering assign M. alveolatus to Mixopterus? In 1950?
Fixed the quote issue. It says when they assigned it to Megalograptus in the article, "Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering assigned the species to Megalograptus in 1964". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writing that the morphology of the appendage described by Shuler in 1915" I'd prefer this verb to be replaced, maybe with "argued".
Replaced with "argued". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils potentially referrable to Megalograptus have also been reported from the Martinsburg Formation of New York and Pennsylvania." at this point, "also" has been repeated many times in the paragraph.
Yeah, changed this sentence a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Classification
  • "Shortly after being recognized as an eurypterid" replace "an" with "a".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1964, Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering placed Megalograptidae, alongside Mixopteridae, Carcinosomatidae and Mycteroptidae, into the superfamily Mixopteracea" I avoid mentioning these clades ending in -acea without any explanation as these suffixes are not used anymore in eurypterid classification and they might confuse readers, so specify it was renamed later to Mixopteroidea.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with both the Eurypteroidea and the Mixopteroidea (later renamed to the Carcinosomatoidea)" is this true? Was Carcinosomatoidea found to have priority as a name over Mixopteroidea, or were they just synonymized?
To be honest the nomenclature of the eurypterid clades is strange. I don't see why the superfamilies ending in -acea do not hold priority. The case with Mixopteroidea vs. Carcinosomatoidea is also more complicated than needs to be explored in detail in this article; though if it can be phrased in another way I welcome suggestions. Mixopteroidea (in the form Mixopteracea) was used before Carcinosomatoidea and is the oldest superfamily-level name of the group (coined by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering in 1964). Apparently, however, the authority for superfamilies derives from the authority of the type family, which means that Carcinosomatoidea, first used only in recent years, is recognised as coined by Størmer in 1934, despite Størmer only having named the Carcinosomatidae. This in turn means that Carcinosomatoidea also gets priority over Mixopteroidea, since Mixopteroidea derives from Mixopteridae, coined by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering in 1955. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... then we could just say that Mixopteroidea is now considered a synonym of Carcinosomatoidea, without further explanation. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(if taxa where less than 33.3% of the body was preserved were removed)" if we were to explain how was the analysis conducted, I think I'd prefer to use numbers as it would be more technical and the context would require it, but since we aren't going too much into depth here, I think "one third" fits more than a percentage. This is optional though.
Makes sense to go with "one third", changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tetlie speculated that the Megalograptus and its family could be very basal, given their early age," you use "the" for families, but not for genera in the rest of the article, so remove it in this sentence.
Yeah this was just a mistake, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point from the description section (morphology subsection) I didn't notice before, define basal in "and are lacking in basal megalograptids (Pentecopterus)."
Linked and added explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either very basal, between the Onychopterelloidea and the Eurypteroidea, or more derived" define derived. We've been usually using "advanced" as a deinition of this term in eurypterid articles so you could replace "derived" on "to be taxonomically problematic, perceiving the genus to share several potential synapomorphies (derived trait unique to a clade)" (first mention of the word in the article) with "advanced" or leave it as is and explain derived posteriorly.
I've added the explanation at the first point the term is mentioned, should be fine like this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The description of the megalograptid Pentecopterus in 2015 by James Lamsdell" Lamsdell's name has already been mentioned on the description section, so only leave the surname here.
Removed first name. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that the family originally contained Megalograptus and Echinognathus, and also that Pentecopterus was described as a megalograptid, which combined with the cladogram makes me worry that hammering home which three genera the family contains might be repetitive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the cladogram shouldn't be counted in this, but it doesn't matter, this is optional. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paleontology
  • "Discovered alongside specimens of M. ohioensis were tube-like structures containing fossil fragments of the trilobite Isotelus and eurypterids" I feel like an "of" is needed between "and" and "eurypterids", but I am not sure if this is gramatically correct or if the current version is not.
I think either works, but I added an "of". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the presence of M. ohioensis fossil material" "of fossil material of M. ohioensis"
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contain fragments of jawless fish and fragments of smaller specimens of Lanarkopterus itself." avoid the repetition of "fragmets" twice here. Also, the jawless fish fragments aren't too relevant here, so maybe rewrite the sentence in a way that it is given less importance, although I've tried right now and nothing too elegant comes out of my keyboard, so this can be skipped.
Made an attempt here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm its carnivorous diet." that Megalograptus could have had a carnivorous diet is questioned or suggested earlier in the article? If not, rewrite it to "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm that the genus had a carnivorous diet."
No, it's never been questioned that Megalograptus was carnivorous, but the coprolites would be absolute confirmation. I've changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not satisfied with this point, as "confirm" makes it look as if it was doubted or questioned before. Perhaps replace the word with "indicate" or "show". Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with "further indicate" since I think just "indicate" also makes it seem as if it's some sort of new revelation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given that there are no canals for poison in the telson of Megalograptus" I assume that such a possibility has been discussed in the cited paper, but I feel like it does not have much sense in that part of the text, so possibly remove it from there and discuss this in the end of the paragraph.
I actually think it makes perfect sense here; it's quickly mentioning that there were no poison canals and then moves on to the actual suggested function. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the sentence again more rapidly and fluidly and it is fine, no problem with this point. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megalograptus is known from what was once near-shore marine environments" either "were" or "was once a near-shore marine environment".
Changed to "were". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The late Ordovician fossils of M. ohioensis, and the associated fauna, were found in a rock layer containing remnants of volcanic ash" rewrite "and the associated fauna" to "as well as the associated fauna" so the commas have more sense of being there.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicating that the ecosystem was destroyed through a volcanic eruption." add "in which they lived" after "ecosystem".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossils of M. welchi were recovered in an otherwise popular crinoid fossil site" the site is popular for its crinoid fauna? If so, no issues with this point.
Yes, the fossil site was popular among fossil hunters for the large amounts of crinoids found there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other fossil fauna known from the M. welchi site" "Other fossil fauna known from (the [fossil] site of M. welchi/M. welchi's [fossil] site/the [fossil] site in which M. welchi has been found)".
Went with the first suggestion since that's the simplest one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering (1964) are cited three times in the last paragraph even though there's no information from other sources in between, so remove two citations. This also happens in "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm its carnivorous diet.[3] The large spines on its forelimbs already indicate that Megalograptus was predatory,[3]", on the last paragraph of the classification section, on "Fossils belonging to a small variety[2] of Megalograptus have been reported from Katian-age[2]" at the history of research section, on "which it did not in M. ohioensis, and in M. welchi, the spine-shaped ultimate joint was blunt and thick, whereas it was slender in M. ohioensis).[3] In 1964, Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering named two new species of Megalograptus[3]", on the rest of the first paragraph of the Additional fossils subsection after Lamsdell and Braddy (2009) are cited for the last time there, on "A similar, but darker, brown and black color scheme has been inferred for M. ohioensis,[5] and its fossils being more well-preserved allows for more detailed examination.[3] M. williamsae also had a similar color scheme, with its tergites indicating black scales against light brown integument.[3]" at the description section (coloration subsection) and on "and M. williamsae grew to about 50 cm (1 ft 8 in).[2] The smallest known species of Megalograptus was an as yet undescribed Canadian species which only grew to 10 cm(3.9 in) in length.[2]" at the size subsection.
I've had issues in some other articles I've written with people not understanding where the information is from when I've used citations only after a very large amount of text; unless there are guidelines against this I think it's good in this case to cite like this since that makes it very clear which statements and which information comes from where. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a bit random to me though, as I see you do this for every sentence in some parts on the text and for several ones in others. Do you do this depending on whether the information is on different pages? Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is random and arbitrary (not based on page numbers of parts of the text). I've removed the repeat references for now, if it turns out that not repeating them is an issue it'll come up during the source review and can be corrected then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simplified reconstruction of the telson-pretelson assemblage of M. ohioensis, viewed from below (left) and above (right)" I believe an en dash (–) goes in "telson-pretelson assemblage" instead of a hyphen per MOS:ENDASH (see subsection MOS:ENBETWEEN). I don't have a good enough English to be able to explain why properly but I believe "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities" is a good example given in the article which can be applied here as there's not a part of the body in a eurypterid known as a telson-pretelson assemblage (as far as I know, maybe this is an anatomical exception of Megalograptus) and the telson and pretelson and different things and concepts. I hope I've made myself understood, the hyphen and en dash thing is confusing to me. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is super confusing; I've replaced the hyphen with an en dash. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Maybe link genus (both in the lead and the description section). I think it is not a word as common as species that people without knowledge on this topic would understand. Super Ψ Dro 14:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a group which typically leave writing-like fossil remains." "leaves"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the smallest Megalograptus only growing to about 10 cm (3.9 in) in length." specify the species is undetermined.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and spined forward-facing appendages" link appendages as it was done in the main text.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though its telson was a sharp spike, Megalograptus was not venomous." I feel that the poison fact is not delivered well, as it is now, it makes it look as if that Megalograptus was poisonous is suggested before in the text or as if the fact that it had a sharp spike as a telson could suggest this. I'd remove this from the lead and rewrite the sentence as "and its sharp spike-like telson (the last division of the body), which was surrounded by unique "cercal blades", capable of grasping. Certain fossils...".
I think an arthropod (a sea scorpion no less) having a large spike-shaped telson does beg the question whether it was venomous or not; TBH I do not see the issue here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It never did to me, I had never even had through my mind the possibility that eurypterids could have been venomous, maybe that's why I brought this point. It'd be nice to mention somewhere that eurypterids are commonly known as sea scorpions to make this more obvious, but it is maybe excessive. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to get it in smoothly, but I've re-arranged and slightly re-phrased these sentences, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a way to introduce that eurypterids are also called sea scorpions either, so it's fine, I don't want to be too insistent in this. By the way, now infer is used in two sentences in a row, so find a synonym to replace one. Maybe "presume" or "speculate" might work. Here is a quite complete list of synonyms for infer in case you aren't satisfied with both [3]. Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "deduce" for the second "infer", since I feel "presume" and "speculate" make it seem too uncertain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a paragraph dedicated to the description and another dedicated to paleoecology. Is it possible that there is another one among them on the history of research and classification? I like when articles reach the recommended maximum number of paragraphs in a lead, 4, but again, this is optional.
I've added a new paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and have been grouped together in the Megalograptidae since 1955. Kenneth E. Caster and Erik N. Kjellesvig-Waering revised Megalograptus in 1955," replace the second 1955 with "in (on?) the same year" and also briefly mention Pentecopterus is also in Megalograptidae in the paragraph. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the second 1955. I don't think Pentecopterus is relevant to mention here and I'm finding it hard to fit it in non-awkwardly (though if you have a suggestion as to how I can look at that). Echinognathus is mentioned because they have been considered related for so long and Echinognathus in of itself is important to Megalograptus specifically. The lede of Tyrannosaurus mentions Tarbosaurus because their histories of research are somewhat intertwined, but does not mention the more recently described third genus in the Tyrannosaurini (Zhuchengtyrannus). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to specify all the genera that are in the Megalograptidae (and that Megalograptus is related to) and this can be done with a few words, so I think it's worth doing so. I suggest "Megalograptus was noted as being similar to Echinognathus by August Foerste in 1912 and the two genera have been considered closely related since then, and have been grouped together since 1955 in the Megalograptidae, a family to which the genus Pentecopterus was posteriorly also assigned in 2015.", is that good? Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't see why this is necessary but I added Pentecopterus in a way close to your suggestion (just avoiding making the sentence unusually long). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests that Megalograptus, like many modern chelicerates, was, at least at times, cannibalistic." since it isn't 100% confirmed, maybe say "possibly was".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened in several articles I've worked on and I don't know why, might have to do with the visual editor in some way. I've fixed it here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While linking authors and journals at the references I realized Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, the Geological Survey of Sweden, is listed as a journal, which I imagine is not the case. Is it possible that the actual journal is Sveriges geologiska undersökning. Avhandlingar och uppsatser? I get several Google results from searching this. Super Ψ Dro 16:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's suppoed to be "Sveriges geologiska undersökning: avhandlingar och uppsatser". Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're done here. Excellent article, I hope I was not too nitpicky or pushy in my review. Support. Super Ψ Dro 08:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus Thank you for taking the time to review! It was nitpicky, but that's good and what this is for and the end result is a better article :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While uncommon for a description section, I think we need to know who made the inferences about coloration, when, and how, because it seems a bit risky to take a 1964 paper at face value. What are the current views on this, do the conclusions hold up/have they been since confirmed?
I added the year and authors. The same concerns you have did occur to me while writing this. Strangely, I have not been able to find any other author that comments on Caster's and Kjellesvig-Waering's inferences of the color. Kjellesvig-Waering is a hugely respected eurypterid researcher (he's named a large amount of genera and clades and has a eurypterid named after him, Waeringopterus) and eurypterid researchers do not tend to hold back when dismissing past research as wrong (a lot of this paper is almost character assassination of the researcher who named Eusarcana), but it is also something I feel ought to have been commented on further. Any suggestions for what to do here (if anything needs to be done) are welcome. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better and more cautious now, but it seems you only mention one study, when there is also one form 1958? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention the 1958 paper since that one is not about Megalograptus, added now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the second largest Ordovician eurypterid" Maybe say "the largest of the eurypterid Ordovician period", just in case layreaders by this point doesn't understand what Ordovician refers to?
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the front of the carapace there is a downturn and six small downward-facing spikes, possibly an adaptation for digging in the mud. The compound eyes of Megalograptus were medium-sized" Change in tense for some reason. Could this be made consistent throughout?
Fixed some instances I could find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upper portions of segments" Add "body" before segments?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the appendages, the third pair of appendages" I don't think you need to repeat "appendages".
Removed the second "appendages". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(counting the simple chelicerae as the first pair)" You should explain what they are at first mention.
Added explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 3.5 times the length of the carapace, were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace" Sounds repetitive, could it be rephrased somehow so "carapace" doesn't need to be repeated?
Since this is basically saying twice how large the arms are in relation to the carapace I've deleted "were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace" and instead gone with the absolute number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a rare feature in the eurypterids otherwise mostly known from" I think there could be a comma before "otherwise".
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might look better if the life restoration under colouration was right aligned, and then the diagram above was left aligned? Not that important, but nice if the life restoration could "face" the text.
I agree, and Super Dromaeosaurus also pointed out the alignment of the images here, but if I move either of the two top ones (size and anatomical diagram) there are MOS:SANDWICHING issues with either each other or with the infobox, and having the restoration as right aligned then makes all the images aligned to the same side (which might be a bit meh as well?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could let the size diagram stay, but if you moved only the anatomical diagram to the left, by the paragraph starting with "The mesosoma of Megalograptus", it doesn't look like there would be sandwiching, on my screen at least? FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I didn't consider changing the paragraph the image was associated wih. Yes, this works. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mesosoma of Megalograptus (the first six segments after the head) was distinctly similar to" Odd mix of singular and plural?
"Mesasoma" is singular; the segments are not individual mesasoma, "mesasoma" is the collective term for the first half of the body. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paragraphs are very long, makes them a bit hard to read, I'm thinking of the second to last one under Morphology, and the first under Additional fossils.
Divided up the paragraphs you mentioned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link scorpion?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed by the telson (the posteriormost division of the body)" Wouldn't it be simpler to just say the tail-segment?
I'm worried that using "tail" here might be confusing given that the entire last half of the body could be seen as a tail, especially since it was bendy. The telson is a tail in horseshoe crabs, but I'm not sure scorpion stingers (also telsons) have been referred to as tails. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as long as it follows the terminology of the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the anatomical terms of direction couldn't just be replaced by common terms throughout?
Possibly, perhaps "posteriormost division of the body" could be replaced with "last division of the body"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be more understandable, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are lacking in basal megalograptids (Pentecopterus)" Why plural and then you only mention one genus?
Changed to singular. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these estimates are dubious as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils." I realise you go into this for some other species later, but I wonder if it should already there be explained why ornamentation is unreliable in this regard?
The explanation comes right after, or do you mean that this should be rephrased so that the explanation comes before? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention this first after discussing M. welchi "According to a 2009 study by James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy, these estimates are dubious as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils", you'd expect an explanation regarding that exact species, based on the mentioned study. Instead, the sentence ends, and you move on to another species, and only then do you explain the unreliability based on a different study, which is kind of confusing. It is a bit unclear if it also applies to the formerly mentioned species, welchi. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The supplementary information from the 2009 study (a list of species and size estimates) states this for both welchi and shideleri: "Size estimation dubious, based on ornamentation of incomplete fragments". The 2015 study says that the largest Megalograptus were 78 cm long but in terms of the large size estimates only talks about M. shideleri specifically (no detail on the welchi estimate but presumably it is being discarded as well given the 78 cm figure). I agree that the text does not really flow that well, but there is no published explanation regarding M. welchi specifically. Open to suggestions for how to rephrase here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move the order around the species are mentioned in so that the explanation comes earlier? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to restructure this part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is that the fossils were not cleaned properly at the time, meaning that their exact outline was not clear." Seems overly wordy, you could say "is that the exact outline of the fossils was unclear because they were not properly cleaned yet".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fragmentary fossils of M. welchi were initially recovered by L. B. Welch, whom the species name welchi honours" Found and named when?
The source used here does not say when Welch found the specimens, but the year it was named is included in the article already (1874); perhaps the original description will offer more insight if I can track that down. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original description should be Miller, S.A. 1874. Notes and descriptions of Cincinnatian group fossils. Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science 1: 343–351. but I can't track down a version I can read online. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a job for WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the description does not include when Welch found the fossils, so presumably that information is just not recorded. I corrected and added some etymological information based on the original description but much of the information in it is not of much use given that Miller thought it was a graptolite. With the benefit of hindsight it's a bit humorous looking at Miller's illustrations of "graptolite fossils" that are clearly portions of the spiny legs of a eurypterid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is based on this genus, perhaps nice to show here, should be public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, feast your eyes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were confirmed in discussions with August Foerste and Edward Oscar Ulrich" When?
Added that it was the same year - per the source these discussions took place simultaneously with Ruedemann's research project. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar to the other eurypterid" Other seems redundant.
Removed "other". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were not sufficiently morphologically distinct from other eurypterids" A bit awkward with the double "ly", how about "were not morphologically distinct enough"?
Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supported the existence of M. welchi and M. ohioensis as distinct species" Wordy, why not just "supported the species distinction of M. welchi and M. ohioensis?
Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be good just as a formality to put the restorations used here up for review at WP:paleoart, just in case someone notices something off, but mostly so we can demonstrate it has been reviewed.
Yeah, put it up for review. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few comments there now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting to see what Junnn11 thinks of the revised version now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and longer, more narrow and sharper end points" Why not "narrower", like the rest?
Changed to "narrower". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on fossil fragments, including fragments of the appendages" I don't think the second "fragments" is needed.
Removed the second "fragments". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referenced "the very pronounced development of the alveolar processes surrounding the spines" I think we need to know what "alveolar processes" means in this context.
I agree but I still don't know what it means; will try to find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume as with tooth sockets that it must be the sockets of the spines? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume so as well, but can I add this without an explicit reference that this is what it means? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one dictionary[4] only gives one definition that would make sense in this context, "a small cavity or pit: such as a : a socket in the jaw for a tooth", I think we could at leats say something along those lines in parenthesis. Maybe say " alveolar processes (pits) surrounding the spines"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. I've changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils belonging to a small variety[2] of Megalograptus have been reported" When?
First reported in 2002, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last round of edits introduced a typo, "supporteing".
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if taxa where less than one third of the body was preserved were removed)" If taxa with less than one third of the body preserved were removed?
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give exact date of publication for one sources,which is probably unnecessary, and inconsistent anyway.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after being recognized as a eurypterid in the early 20th century, Megalograptus was noted as being similar, and likely closely related, to the genus Echinognathus." When and by who?
This is in the classification section so I was worried it would count as repetition, but added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The taxonomy was amended by Erik N. Kjellesvig-Waering in Størmer's 1955 Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" Why give the title of a single source, which you don't do for others?
Removed title of the source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is not impossible that eurypterids" Why not just "it is possible"? Simpler and means the same.
No idea; changed to "it is possible". Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful for lay readers to replace "referred" with "assigned".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably used for active prey capture,[18] used to grasp prey and move it to the mouth" I think the second "used" is unneeded.
Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simplified reconstruction of the telson-pretelson assemblage of M. ohioensis, viewed from below (left) and above (right)" Perhaps state in the caption they may have been used for grasping?
Added this to the caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered in an otherwise popular crinoid fossil site" What is meant by "popular" here?
Frequented by fossil hunters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be clarified? "recovered in a crinoid fossil site otherwise popular with fossil hunters"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, added your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. alveolatus occurred together with" Together is redundant.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species were substantially smaller, with the smallest Megalograptus only growing" Isn't it redundant to mention the genus name here?
Probably is, removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possible coprolites, fossilized dung" Put the explanation in parenthesises instead?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests that Megalograptus, like many modern chelicerates, was, at least at times, cannibalistic." A bit convoluted with all the interposed sentences, simplify somehow?
Made an attempt. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are cercal blades in quotation marks in the intro but not in the article body?
Removed the quotation marks in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I'm sorry, I completely missed that you had responded to my latest round of responses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and questions from Chidgk1

[edit]

Completely non-expert questions:

So is the similarity of the shape to a modern lobster convergent evolution or are they closely related? And do we know if it occupied a similar ecological niche?

It's convergent evolution; Megalograptus is more closely related to spiders and horseshoe crabs than to lobsters. I don't know much about what lobsters get up to but Megalograptus was one of the largest predators around at its time so it was probably an apex predator. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The alt texts reading "Image of Megalograptus ohioensis" and "Image of Pentecopterus decorahensis" and "Adelophthalmus" could be a bit more descriptive.

I've made them slightly more descriptive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show I properly read it I fixed a shitty typo near the end and can now support it.

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and fixes. I can take a look at the Greenhouse gas emissions article when I have the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Non-expert review here, although I do read a bit about prehistoric life for light reading sometimes. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Megalograptus was a large megalograptid eurypterid" - this may just be me not being up-to-date on all of the phrasing conventions for this, but it seems odd that Megalograptus is being referred to in the singular "was a" when it's a genus. Maybe refer to it as a genus here?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which only grew to 10 cm(3.9 in) in" - spacing error
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm highly confused by File:Megalograptus Size.svg - its showing the largest specimen at over 2 meters, which I believe is over 6 ft, but that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.
That seems to refer to the scale bar, maybe it would be less confusing if the "2 m" was moved to the top of it? Pinging the maker, Slate Weasel. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scale bar is 2 meters, the specimens are marked with the silhouettes and the largest is 78 cm (almost 3 feet), not counting the arms. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. With the 2 meters mark being placed right on the slightly darker line down the middle, I though it was saying that the middle line was 2 meters and that it was a 4 meter scale bar (which probably would have crossed my mind as implausible based on human height if I thought about it more). Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with how you format page ranges - compare 551-554 to 265-9
Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the author for the Answer Monday source (Glenn Branch)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in Category:Diploperculata, which seems to be correct, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. Can that infraorder be mentioned somewhere per WP:CATV?
Comment from another reviewer, perhaps we could have a Category:Carcinosomatoidea to group members of this superfamily. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Carcinosomatoidea instead per Super Dromaeosaurus, which fixes the issue, since going into detail on the infraorder seems a bit excessive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, sources are all reliable enough for what they're citing.

I think that's it from me. Good work here. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • This is a copy edit as I have no specialist knowledge.
  • "of Late Ordovician age". You give the temporal range in the infobox, but it should also be in the lead text.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the discovery of more complete new fossil material of the new species M. ohioensis". Repetition of "new". The first one is superfluous.
Removed the first "new". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quadratic". Wiktionary defines quadratic as square shaped. Is this what you mean or just four sided? If it a technical term in the field you need to link it to an article which explains it.
It's meant in the general sense (square shaped). The head was rounded, but it was also more square in shape than in most of the relatives of Megalograptus. I've changed "approximately quadratic" to "vaguely quadratic" which probably is better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most unique feature". A feature cannot be most unique. It is either unique or not unique. Maybe most unusual.
Because the structure in question is known from one other eurypterid (Holmipterus) it's not unique in the literal sense, no. I've changed it to "most unusual". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(this meaning mineralization during fossilization did not distort the original color scheme" "this meaning" is colloquial and clumsy. "meaning that" would be better.
Changed to "meaning that". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more well-preserved". This is clumsy. Maybe "better preserved".
Changed to "better preserved". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foerste also noted that the fossils of M. welchi were not morphologically distinct enough from other eurypterids to differentiate it, with its earlier age instead serving as the main distinction of the genus and species." No change needed but is difference in age alone considered enough to distinguish species? Why could it not be long-lived species?
You are correct that difference in age is not enough to properly distinguish species. M. welchi was based on very fragmentary fossils which at this time were determined to not contain any features that allows for secure differentiation from other eurypterids, but it was kept as a distinct species since a lack of distinguishing features also means that it did not preserve any particular distinguishing traits of any other species (if that makes sense), so it could not be assigned to any known species at this time either. The difference in age then serves as something like a provisional distinguishing feature since no previously known species lived at the same time as M. welchi. Geographical and temporal differences are sometimes used in this way for poorly preserved fossil animals: the plesiosaur Scanisaurus, for instance, is poorly known from fossils and the known fragments does not allow for differentiation from other plesiosaurs of its family, but its geographical location (Sweden) is unique. This usually only goes for species named decades or centuries ago, as scientists today are reluctant to name new species based on fragmentary fossils, even if the time period or geographical location are unique. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the leg of taxa with less than one third of the body preserved were removed M. welchi being stouter, with thicker and shorter spines" I lose you here.
I have no idea what happened here; this part became garbled somehow. I've restored the original version of the sentence, which is pretty clear. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass

[edit]

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • Ref 3 needs page numbers
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the National Center for Science Education (ref 7) a high-quality source?
It probably isn't. I've removed this source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 ISBN is missing some dashes, making it inconsistent with ref 14
I've changed all ISBN numbers to be the same version (ISBN-13) and I've added dashes consistently. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "Papers in Palaeontology" a high-quality source? (ref 18)
It was a scientific journal published by the Palaeontological Association (one of the association's two main journals, the other being Palaeontology). I don't see the problem with this source, but I noticed that the link in the ref no longer works so I've updated it with a working link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some additional digging for the editorial staff, and discovered that it is overseen by a professor from University of Leicester, so I am no longer concerned about this source.
  • What makes "The Paleobiography Database" a high-quality source? (ref 20)
It is an online database wherein the entries are written by specialist researchers and cited to scientific papers. The website Fossilworks, a portal that accesses the Paleobiology Database, is one of the recommended resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Resources (the first one under "database").Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the about page for this source, and it looks like it is managed by a professor from Macquarie University, so I am not concerned about this source anymore.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, so this is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the anatomical diagram
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Megalograptus_fossils.png: why is this believed to be CC0?
It isn't; I've updated the license tag to match the tag for the larger file this image was extracted from (just regular public domain and not CC). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Megalograptus_holotype_description_illustration.png: what is the author's date of death?
1897. I've added his lifespan to the file's description. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be tagged with one of the historical, inaccurate paleoart/reconstruction templates on Commons? But since it's from the literature, and not usermade, it hasn't been reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the inaccurate paleoart template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (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/Megalograptus/archive1&oldid=1046390195"