Onychopterella

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am planning to promote this article to FA and I would like to have this peer review before I risk failing the FA review. The article is a currently a good article and has been edited by the Guild of Copy Editors.

Thanks in advance for the reviewers. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel and Macrophyseter, do you have something else to add? Super Ψ Dro 14:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more. Sorry for the hiatus, I had been quite busy. Macrophyseter | talk 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've done the same a few times before. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, FunkMonk. I recently remembered that one the trackways of a species of the ichnogenus Palmichnium probably belonged to Onychopterella augusti. Should I mention this in the article? Super Ψ Dro 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, for example, I devoted a large section of the Dilophosaurus article to tracks that have been assigned to it... Anythings relating to a given taxon should be covered in its article, for comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any errors in the description after taking a quick look. I'll take a look at the rest of the article (hopefully) today. Sorry about forgetting. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have added more information to the paleobiology, do you have any additional comments? Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, some comments on the new text: "This great preservation". Now this comes after a paragraph which is not about reservation, so ether move mthe text around, or just say "its great preservation". FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• "It is interpreted that the trackways of the eurypterid ichnospecies (a species based on fossil prints) Palmichnium capensis belonged to O. augusti". A bit convoluted. How about "the eurypterid ichnospecies (a species based on fossil prints) Palmichnium capensis is thought to have belonged to O. augusti"". The trackways are mentioned later in the parsgrapgh anyway, and now it reads like it is only the trackways, and not any other tracks, that have been assigned to O. augusti. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• "Its trackways were medium-sized" How about "the" or "these" trackways? FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the trackways are no longer mentioned at the beginning, I suppose I should specify that they are its.

• The O. augusti restoration sits a bit oddly under history, where it isn't really relevant (and it clashes with a header below). How about moving it under classification or paleobiology and then moving an image of a specimen (maybe that largest one) under history? Maybe it will free space for additional images, if there even are any. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could I move it to the description and move the size diagram to the history?

Could work. I think it is more relevant in a section about morphology, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• I guess that's it, I'm going to close the peer review. I'll wait for the GOCE to act and then I'll nominate the article. The reviewers can write suggestions they have forgotten or noticed in the next few days once the FA review begins. Super Ψ Dro 15:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

• Hi, I'll have a look soon . First thought, you should probably just abbreviate all binomials in the captions (it is inconsistent now).FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, done. Super Ψ Dro 20:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "were undifferentiated" What does this mean?

That the appendages or podomeres had an equal or very similar shape.

• "did not suffer any contraction" What does this mean?

That the opisthosoma at some point began to narrow more than in the first segments. However, seeing O. augusti I am not sure about this so I have deleted the sentence.

• I think the diagnostic features (of the genus and species) should be discussed under description rather than history, that's where one would look for them.

I'm not sure how to do this since I've always placed the general description of the genus in the description and more detailed information of the species in the history. Do I have to move everything to the description and mention fundamental characteristics or something like that?

Hmm, can you show me some other examples where you have done this? It's not really what one would expect. History is for discovery, naming, and naming revisions, not detailed anatomical descriptions and comparisons. For example, most of the first paragraph under "First discoveries" should logically be moved to description, along with much else under history. Under history, you would then only have to say "x was removed from genus y due to various differences" or similar, but the exact details are under description. As an example, in the recent FA I wrote, Xixiasaurus, I list all the distinguishing features under description, and only mention those under classification that are crucial for its various proposed affiliations. The FA Jaekelopterus also does a good job of this, while of course less detailed (I don't think you have to remove any details). FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples would be Parahughmilleria, Nanahughmilleria and the old Erettopterus... In all of these articles I have placed a relatively little detailed description in the first section, while in the history section I have described all the species with detail. Maybe I'll work on this in the next few days. Super Ψ Dro 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to rework this for FAC, to make the structure of the article more streamlined and easier to get an overview of (GAN is not as strict). FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the characteristics of the species in the history of research. Do you think I should change or add something, or is this enough? And what should I put exactly in the description now? I just describe the species? I think that I might need more FA examples to get a clearer idea of how the structure should be and what these sections should contain. Super Ψ Dro 21:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the info should be deleted, just moved to the description section. I haven't written about athropods, but one article where I have written about a genus with more than one species is Stegoceras. In the description section, you have everything about its morphology, including diagnostic features of the genus, and diagnostic features of the assigned species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the rest of the article when this is done, Super Dromaeosaurus (doesn't make sense to read text until it is in its more final state). FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, these days I didn't have time. I planned to edit today, but an event ruined my plans. If I don't edit tomorrow, I don't know when I can edit again. Super Ψ Dro 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At last I've done it, is this fine? Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Miller and Gurley named this species E. kokomoensis" This would make more sense at the beginning of the paragraph, after "described a new species of Eurypterus from the Waterlime Group at Kokomo, Indiana, in the United States". As it is now, I had no idea where to find the info, and you mention the names early for the other species too.

Done

• Etymologies for all the specific names?

It is not possible to find them...

Does this affect the FA review in any way if I end up presenting the article to the FA candidature?

No, we can't add info that can't be sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "E. ranilarva was also described,[5] but is now considered a synonym of O. kokomoensis" This and other such names should be listed under synonyms then.

Done.

Not sure they need to be hidden if there are so few, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would replace all the anatomical direction terms to make it more accessible, but it's up to you.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what do you mean here.

Terms like ventral, dorsal, etc. Not sure if most readers would understand them, but not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I do not think it's necessary. Super Ψ Dro 08:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The ornamentation of Onychopterella" I think it could be explained where this ornamentation was situation.

Done, but you might want more specification.

• You could state in image captions what aspects the specimens are shown in (bottom or top view).

Done.

• As your first FAC, and as a non-native English speaker, I would recommend sending this to the copy editors (WP:GOCE) before nomination.

I already did it once, I guess it would have been a better idea to wait for the peer review...

Haha, of course, as stated in the introduction... FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "different enough from the rest of Eurypterus species" From other might read better.

Done.

• "under the name of Onychopterus" I'd specify new name.

Done.

• "were much better preserved than what was described in the original description" Than stated in the original description would be shorter and clearer.

Yes, I had problems with the wording.

• "by Ludwig Reichenbach, a German botanist and ornithologist" I don't think we need those details here.

I think "ornithologist" here would be useful, the rest has been removed.

• "which still lasts until nowadays" Until nowadays is redundant. In any case, how can you source such a statement to the original source? You'd need a recent source for that.

I thought I already deleted the end of the sentence!

• "the old name with a new one, Onychopterella" Which means?

If I'm not wrong, pterella means the same as pterus, anyway I can't find the etymology of the post-1951 name.

• All synonyms and species should redirect here (if they aren't already).

Done.

• "It has been reported that the only known specimen of O. pumilus is deposited at the University of Illinois, but its accession number is unknown." Why "it has been reported" and not just "the only known specimen is deposited at? Unless it is contested, we don't need the first part.

Okay, I removed it.

• "E. ranilarva was also described as a close relative of O. (Eurypterus) kokomoensis" By who and when? And was this in its original description?

Clarke and Ruedemann did, now it's specified.

• "It has also been proposed that because due to its small size" You give date and author for the other suggestions.

Done.

• "from the rest of species" Missing the.

Added.

• "similarities of metastoma" Missing the.

Added.

• "that because due to its" Remove either because or due to.

I removed "due to".

• "It differed from the rest of species by the lack of large epimera in the pretelson, wider body proportions, the short length of the postabdomen and telson, the lanceolate form of the latter, the two projections of the eighth podomere and in a distal spine longer than in the rest of the species. " All of this also belongs under description.

Isn't this part of the differences between species that should be described in the history of research?

• "in the family Erieopteridae since 198" By who?

Added.

• "considered it reasonable that the same case had been given for the eurypterids." Very concoluted, just say "that the case was the same for the eurypterids" or similar.

Done.

• "like the xiphosuran Limulus" You could use the common term horseshoe crab here too, for clarity.

Done.

• "Most of the eurypterids found outside the supercontinent Laurentia consisted of highly derived genera" Doesn't seem to make sense. Most of the eurypteids were/belonged to?

I'll use "were".

• "that the collectivity of O. augusti went extinct" What does the bolded part add to the sentence?

With this I mean the population of O. augusti, I didn't want to repeat the word since I was going to use it a few words later for "viable population".

• "that O. augusti established in Gondwana" Established itself or was established.

Picked itself.

• Is there no cladogram that shows higher taxon names (family/subfamily) or all species in this genus?

O. pumilus is not known enough to be included in a cladogram. And regarding families ... I think they are mentioned in a data matrix or something like that but the truth is that I do not know how that works, maybe you want to take a look (page 57).

• "(meaning "claw wing")" and "The generic name is composed by the Ancient Greek words ὄνῠξ (ónux), meaning "claw" and πτερόν (pteron), meaning "wing". ", you don't need both in the intro.

I removed the second one.

• The intro should have some measurements and general physical description.

Done.

• "which turned out to be highly similar to that of the scorpions of today, supporting an eurypterid-scorpion clade (group)." Only stated in the intro, which sould not have unique info.

Added in paleobiology.

• There could be a mention of some of the palaeocology info under the intro. For example, the intro doesn't even state it ate other animals.

Done. I am not sure to mention that O. augusti ate other animals since it (the species) is mentioned shortly before and this also depends on each species.

• That's about all I have (still don't think the few synonyms need to be hidden, it's not like a long list), and I'd support once it is nominated for FAC. Might be a good idea to get a content expert like Ichthyovenator to review here or at the FAC (practically all I know about eurypterids is from reviewing these articles). FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no problem with removing it, so sure. Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 08:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel

• I may also have a go at reviewing this (as I want to improve my skills in this area). So far I've gone over the description section and have a few minor suggestions for it (listed below). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the other onychopterellid eurypterids, Onychopterella was a small eurypterid. This feels somewhat redundant in the way its phrased, perhaps try Like other onychopterellids, Onychopterella was a small eurypterid.?

Sure, done. Super Ψ Dro 16:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the size of the largest species is estimated at 16 centimetres (6.3 inches) It should be specified here that this is O. kokomoensis. Also, could the size of O. augusti be added to this section?

Done.

• representing the biggest species of the Onychopterellidae family. I personally think that representing the biggest species of the family Onychopterellidae. sounds nicer, but I'm not sure if the first is actually grammatically incorrect or not, so it may not need fixing.

I'm not sure either which of them would be better or if both are correct, what do you think FunkMonk?

The latter is more formal, and when I've used the former, it has sometimes been changed to the latter by others... FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done then. Should I apply this for the rest of the article? Super Ψ Dro 13:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced all of them, I think. Super Ψ Dro 22:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick note, per WP:CAP, image captions shouldn't have periods/full stops if they're only fragments, such as "Size comparison of the three species of Onychopterella" or "Restoration of O. augusti" --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I have always been in favor of adding periods but I never knew that this was explained in a policy... I guess now I will fix it. Super Ψ Dro 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for "This is the largest specimen of O. kokomoensis so far, FMNH 12905 (16.05 cm, 40.77 in), housed at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago" the period shouldn't have been removed (WP:CAPFRAG - more specific link), as "This is the largest specimen" is a complete sentence. Alternatively, it could be changed to "The largest specimen of O. kokomoensis so far, FMNH 12905 (16.05 cm, 40.77 in), housed at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago" and a period would be unneccessary (these guidelines are new to me, too). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I prefer to change the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are things I found on my second pass, listed below. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In History of research: They noticed differences between the new species and E. remipes, the type species of Eurypterus, such as the proportions of the carapace, the shorter telson or the size and general form of the body. I think that it should be ...the shorter telson and the size and general form of the body., "or" makes it sound like only some of those features were present.

Sure, replaced.

• FMNH UC6638, an almost complete specimen, was designed as the type specimen. did you mean designated as the type specimen.?

Yes, now it's corrected.

• The paratype, GSSA C427, is the biggest known specimen. I've generally been told to use largest instead of biggest.

Sure.

• In Classification: It has been suggested that Onychopterella could represent a paraphyletic genus, that is, a clade sharing a last common ancestor but not including all descendants of this ancestor, if a group is paraphyletic, it is not a clade.

I have replaced "clade" with "grouping".

• In Paleobiology: perhaps natatory could be linked?

Done.

• In Paleoecology: O. augusti would have been a top predator, perhaps change it to O. augusti would have been a top predator,

Done.

• "peritidal" could link to Peritidal zone

Done.

• O. pumilus, which lived in the Early Llandovery (Early Silurian) epoch of Illinois. is associated with a large number of indeterminate species should have a comma, not a period: O. pumilus, which lived in the Early Llandovery (Early Silurian) epoch of Illinois, is associated with a large number of indeterminate species

I guess I forgot.

• Therefore, the isolated appearance of an ancient form like O. augusti in the supercontinent Gondwana is challenging, since the genus was not a good disperser due to the narrow form of its swimming legs is it challenging to explain? Was it challenging for Onychopterella to get there? Alternatively, "challenging" could be replaced with something like "surprising" or "unusual".

It was challenging for the researchers. Now this is specified, but I think it could be expressed much better. Do you have any suggestion?

Maybe something along the lines of is challenging for the scientific community to explain? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• That's all from me. This has been a very interesting read. Hopefully my lack of detailed knoledge about arthropods hasn't badly influenced my comments!

No, don't worry about that. Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophyseter

I'll start having a look. Since this is going to be my first time reviewing another article, I'm going to focus more on source review as I have access to the articles cited, although I may also go a bit into the prose if possible. I have to leave soon as of posting this, so I will only review refs #1-12 and related right now and will review the rest when I have more avaliable time. Macrophyseter | talk 17:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing refs #1-12 and related

• The cited link to the Supplement Information in ref #1 (where the cited lengths are found) is broken, which I believe is due to a direct linking to an .xml file. I would recommend changing the link to (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/suppl/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0700)

Sure, done.

• The same lengths of species and specimens are mentioned multiple times, I wonder if that is a bit superfluous and if so, is it possible to restrict them to one mention each.

Keeping the sizes there is not definitive and I do not know if I will keep them there, I still have to restructure the description and history of research, but I will likely remove them from there.

Yeah, I removed them. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In ref #6, I see a few mentions of FMNH UC6638, but not one that specifically identifies it as a holotype. However, the article is a pretty hefty one, and I may have simply missed it.

It is not said directly, but I have assumed that FMNH UC6638 is the holotype because it appears in the same sentence as in that of other holotypes of other species. For example, in the original description of O. augusti (second reference) it is said that GSSA C373 is its holotype, and it is mentioned along with FMNH UC6638. But I can remove it if you think that is not valid.

I think it would be best to try to find another source that confirms the type specimen of the species. Maybe you could try changing "holotype" to "type specimen".

I can't find anything else. I replaced "holotype". Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Onychopterella, which still lasts until nowadays" boldened text seems a bit superfluous IMO.

Agreed, deleted.

Refs #13-20 and related

• "...Onychopterella the most basal (primitive) member..." "(primitive)" seems a bit extraneous as basal is wikilinked.

"Basal" is not a very common term and its article does not explain it in the simplest way...

Then maybe you could replace "basal" with "primitive" entirely?

I think it's better to use basal, the term is used by eurypterid researchers and since it's explained I do not see it necessary to replace it.

It's not always the best to use terms used by researchers when an interpretation of such term that can be quickly understood by less-knowledged readers can be made. But since this is just a single word, I guess this really shouldn't be as big of a deal.

• The meaning of "plate" in the context used in this article could use some explanation, as it does not appear to be a term common for readers less knowledged in terminology.

I would not know how to explain it ... I think it's understandable.

Then maybe you could replace "plate" with "segment" or "body segment"? It's your call here.

They are not the same, in this article, "plate" has several contexts. I've added another explanation for "carapace".

Looks good to me now.

• Same goes with "projection".

Done.

• "..initially together with Erieopterus and Buffalopterus, presumably united by the morphology of the appendages and the opisthosoma.." The prose in this passage is a bit confusing as it seems to suggest that Tollertohn changed something or was not fully certain in his classification which I do not believe is the case based on ref. 15. I would probably prefer "...based on the similarities of the morphology of the appendages and opisthosoma with the erieopterids Erieopterus and Buffalopterus".

With "initially" I mean that more genera were added to Erieopteridae while Onychopterella was in that family. I changed the second part.

• When you are mentioning a study involving more than two authors, it gets a bit messy to name them all. I believe that it would make an easier read if it was stated to be a multi-authored study led by the first author instead. For example, "In 1999, Braddy, Aldridge, Theron and Sarah E. Gabbott, a British geologist,..." would be changed to "A 1999 study led by Braddy...".

I changed that in the paragraph of O. pumilus since these authors do not have much to do with the species but I preferred to keep them in the section of O. augusti as they are the ones who described it and I consider this important. I am not entirely in agreement with the case of 1999 since they are not the same authors, but one more and I think that all of them should be mentioned.

I guess it's fine now as its only one additional author with the trio.

• Continuing from the above, if another study by the same exact authors are going to be mentioned shortly after their debut as a group, you could simply say "the same authors". For example, "In 1995, Braddy, Aldridge and Theron described a well preserved eurypterid..." would be changed to "In 1995, the same authors described a well preserved eurypterid...".

In fact it is the same study. Does the change mentioned above affect this point?

I guess it's fine now. In my personal preference, I would change it to Braddy et al. (1995) as it has now already been mentioned before, but it's optional and your call.

• Continuing from above, however, since it appears that the trio is mentioned a lot, I think it could be okay to simply say "Braddy, Aldrige, and Theron" if another study by them is mentioned later (but not immediately after a previous mention) as long as if the authors are only them.

So their mention in the paleobiology section is fine?

I guess so.

• In ref #17, the statement of Hernantian age is presented as not fully certain. Unless you can cite another study that reinforces a Hernantian occurrence, I think it could be a good idea to mention how it's not fully certain.

I added other citations.

• When you are mentioning a state, it's a bit extraneous to say that it's from the United States unless the state is homonymous with a foreign place.

I would say that Illinois is not the best known state... I think it's better to leave it that way.

But it makes it sort of an awkward read. Also, Essex and Illinois are wikilinked with their articles making their locations quite clear so I don't think you should worry too much about it. If not, then the least that should be done is to make only one mention (in body) that Illinois is a US state and remove any repeats.

Okay, I didn't realize it's mentioned more than once, done.

It's still mentioned twice in body.

Is it fine now or should I change the wording?

It's fine.

• "...a genus found in a Turkish formation near the border with Iraq..." I would change this to "...a genus known from deposits in southeastern Turkey".

Sure.

Quick extra thing(s)

• In the taxobox, the O. augusti authority should be written as "Braddy et al., 1995".

I don't agree, three authors do not seem too numerous and I think it doesn't look bad in the taxobox. This is written in the same way in other dinosaur FA, like Parasaurolophus.

I have been more used to the MLA rule of using et al. when citing a study that has three or more authors but it turns out that APA does it a bit differently which makes yours acceptable. Moot point.

• That's all I have for this review. All sources correctly cite their associated passages in article text and are of reliable, scholarly quality. As FunkMonk had suggested, its a good idea to try to get someone more experienced in content to review this article either here or during FAC. Good luck on FAC! Macrophyseter | talk 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I presented it to the GOCE yesterday. Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]