Talk:Pterygotidae

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pterygotidae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Will review this during the next few days! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• add temporal range to the introduction.

Done.

• temporal range in the text is different to that in the taxonbox

Fixed.

• are characterized by small to large exoskeletons – this does not say much without any indication what is considered as small or large. It might be best to start the description section with discussing the size, as this is the most obvious to most readers.

Moved the last paragraph of the description (which was on size) up and mentioned some of the smaller species too.

• To make the description more accessible, what about including a few general sentences, e.g. "Like other chelicerata …", giving the reader without any knowledge on the topic a rough idea about these animals.

Added.

• Teslon function is better to be discussed in the paleobiology section, and summarized in the introduction, but the description does not seem to be the right place.

It is one of the distinguishing features of the group, just like the clawed chelicerae. I have removed the text about its function, just leaving in a brief note on how the telson morphology is a distinctive characteristic.

• "specialized" is American English, "metre" is British English. Could be consistent.

I am not a native english speaker, so I am not fully aware of the specific differences between the two versions of the language, I have changed every iteration of "specialized" into "specialised".

• In 1859, John William Salter recognized that it was possible to divide Pterygotus on the morphology of the telsons of the various species that had been assigned to it. – do you mean "based on the morphology of the telsons"? The "various species" have been erected even before? This should be introduced first, I found it slightly confusing as it is.

Added a sentence prefacing the one in question with a count of how many species had been named before the creation of the subgenera.

• Please state what the name Pterygotus/Pterygotidae actually mean (etymology).

Done.

• A. Prantl and F. Přibyl – for other authors, you gave full names at first mention. Could be more consistent.

I have tried to track down their full names, but I really can't find them, I will try to look around a bit more.

Found them and added them in.

• Thanks for the interesting article. More tomorrow! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pterygotidae was one of the most successful eurypterid groups – I would say "The pterygotidae was" or "Pterygotids were"

Done.

• a few inches in length – I would stick with the metric system, especially as you are writing in British English.

Changed "inches" to "decimetres".

• There are few other animals that would present appropriate prey and there are virtually no other predators than the pterygotids that would require armored protection. – I had to read this sentence several times before I got it. "There are few other animals" – you mean "There are few animal groups other than vertebrates"? Also "that would require armored protection" – maybe a bit clearer with "that would enforce the evolution of armored protection" or something similar?

Tried to rewrite it a bit, the meaning should be clearer now.

• the increased migration of fish into marine environments. I don't fully understand. Where did the fish live before? Not in marine environments?

Added that they occurred in freshwater environments a few sentences prior.

• The claws were composed of several joints – When I read "claws" I would think of the distal parts of the cheliceres, is that what you mean? However, further down you suddenly speak of chelicerae: "the pterygotid chelicerae would have had to have been composed of four joints." Maybe use "chelicerae" instead of "claws" for clarity? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I mixed up the terms here. Four joints does indeed refer to the whole chelicerae, not just the claws. Fixed.

• In pterygotids, the exoskeletons, ranging in size from small to gigantic, were also covered with semilunar scales – that reads like the semilunar scales are not part of the exoskeleton? Another thing, isn't the number of these semilunar scales something worth mentioning? Does it vary between species?

Yeah, they would definitely be a part of the exoskeleton. Changed the wording to "the outer surface of the exoskeletons, ranging in size from small to gigantic, was composed of semilunar scales". As for going into further detail on the scales themselves, further information on them does not seem to crop up in the sources I have found, other than that they are a characteristic of the group. If I have understood things correctly they are the fish scale-like pattern that can be seen on the image in the infobox (link).

• The posterior margin (tip) of the telson forms a short spine in some genera (Pterygotus and Acutiramus) – really exclusively in these two genera? What about Jaekelopterus?

The paper did not specify the situation in Jaekelopterus but it looks like it had a spine too, changed the wording to "some genera, such as"

• You could recheck if it is necessary to keep redlinks to missing paleontologist articles. Only those paleontologists are considered suitable for having an own Wikipedia article who have independent sources written about them.

Though many of them have contributed pretty significantly to eurypterid research, they are not really mentioned in sources outside of scientific papers, removed many of the links.

• and by derived hibbertopterids Cyrtoctenus and Hastimima. – does it mean that the telson evolved convergently in these hibbertopterids?

Yes, they are as far apart on the eurypterid family tree as they possibly could be, clarified this.

• In the gigantism section, you mention "stergites". Are these the semilunar scales mentioned in the description? If so, it should be already introduced in the description. At least, add a short explanation to the term, especially since there seems to be no wiki article available.

"Even the plates that form the surface of the abdominal segments, the stergites and sternites, are preserved", stergites and sternites are the plates that make up the surface abdominal segments, If I remember correctly the different terms refer to different sides (e.g. top or bottom) of the body. Their outer surface would have been these scales, but the terms refer to the entire plates.

• apodemes – can you link this term?

Linked and explained.

• Though they were the largest arthropods known to have ever existed – previously, you were referring to them only as "some of the largest", but not "the largest".

They were the largest known, removed "some of...".

• not used for specialised feeding, but for grasping. – but wouldn't it be used for grasping in any case?

Yes, changed the wording to "not used for specialised feeding, but solely for grasping".

• All in all, a fine article. The sections which are most engaging to read are the paleobiology and paleoecology sections. I don't really like the "History of research", as it is more about taxonomic content than anything else, and is quite a hard read. I don't have specific ideas how to improve the situation, one could think about adding "guiding sentences" stating the general historic developments, before going into detail. But that is not something I would consider relevant for this GA nomination. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, but since this is a clade and not a specific genus, taxonomic information is going to be the most relevant. I could add some guiding sentences down the line and perhaps some of the more major fossil discoveries of the individual genera in the group.