This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I will review this as soon as we finish with Hughmilleriidae. Pinging FunkMonk so he can to monitor my actions or suggest something that I do not see. SuperΨDro20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just a heads up; I'm currently on vacation so I will be unable to adress your comments for a few days. I should be able to get onto responding and adressing comments properly by Tuesday or Wednesday next week, hopefully that's okay. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
"The Necrogammarus fossil is Late Silurian in age and" It sounds strange to me. Maybe "The Necrogammarus fossil is from the Late Silurian age and"?
I think this is pretty correct English. If you for example search "is *insert period* in age" on Google Scholar, you get many papers with that phrasing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
"diagnosed based on features of the chelicerae (frontal appendages), coxae and the metastoma". I think you have to also mention the telson, which would easily solve the Necrogammarus problem.
I'll have a look when the above is dealt with. I wonder if the restorations can be moved to the right, it is generally preferred that the subject of an image faces the text, when possible. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we do other than at some point during the 1800s prior to 1859. I could expand a bit more on the person who discovered the fossil (Humphry Salwey) based on his obituary if that is relevant, but I am unable to find the year the fossil collected. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Since it seems to have been described in very old sources, I assume there must be old public domain image sof it that could be used? The text mentions it was shown in an old plate. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it is considered a nomen dubium, haven't seen any of the sources state it and the list we have used for a lot of taxonomic information (link) lists it as valid (and lists nomina dubia separately). In my personal opinion it probably should be a nomen dubium but that's another discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply