Talk:Borchgrevinkium
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Super Dromaeosaurus in topic GA Review
 | Borchgrevinkium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 5, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Borchgrevinkium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Delighted to be able to review this article.
- Drive by: File:Early Devonian geography.jpg doesn't look public domain. It says ©C. R. Scotese on the top right corner User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Assessment edit
Links edit
Consider unlinking extinct; animal (also in the main text) and explorer (also in main text) (see MOS:OL for where I am coming from).
- Done.
Imo Devonian period should be a single link.
- Sure.
Ditto Lockovian epoch.
- Done.
Link affinities (Affinity (taxonomy)) (also in the main text).
- Done. Amitchell125, by also in the main text, do you mean "affiliation"?
- No, I thought affinity was in the main body, my mistake. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Amitchell125, by also in the main text, do you mean "affiliation"?
Link paleontologist; phylogenetic; Briggs, Derek E. G..
- Done.
lithography leads to the article on a printing method. Do you mean 'Lithology'?
- Yeah, now it's fixed.
Description edit
This section was not easy for me to verify - it might help if the actual page(s) in Novojilov be given, but I'm not sure. Consider using this reference. (See fig. 7 Plate XIX on p. 856 in the second source for an image, which I don't think is public domain, but which perhaps could be referred to the text.)
- The article by Novojilov is available in the first reference (link), but it must be downloaded. I am aware that there are other articles in English, but why cite them when they are completely based on Novojilov's description but more incompletely?
- If other sources are based on Novojilov's original work, as you suggest, and can be used as citations to verify the text in the article, the English version is preferable (see WP:NONENG for where I am coming from). I would use Novojilov only when necessary. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I still do not agree with this, Novojilov's description is more complete, I do not see the need to include a reference whose information about Borchgrevinkium is completely covered in another one. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- We can agree to differ on this one, I'm sure. I just wish I'd tried harder in French lessons when I was at school, as it was a real slog trying to verify the text using Novojilov . Amitchell125 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I still do not agree with this, Novojilov's description is more complete, I do not see the need to include a reference whose information about Borchgrevinkium is completely covered in another one. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- If other sources are based on Novojilov's original work, as you suggest, and can be used as citations to verify the text in the article, the English version is preferable (see WP:NONENG for where I am coming from). I would use Novojilov only when necessary. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The article by Novojilov is available in the first reference (link), but it must be downloaded. I am aware that there are other articles in English, but why cite them when they are completely based on Novojilov's description but more incompletely?
PIN 1271/1 - it would help if this was explained as the identification label allocated to the specimen.
- Done.
The eyes are not preserved… - does the specimen still exist, as is implied here? If so, its whereabouts should be included in the text.
- Yes, the fossil itself still exists. It is later said (in history of research) that the specimen is in the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
- Thanks, but can it be made more specific that the specimen exists, as It was deposited... wouldn't necessarily be taken by all readers to mean the specimen is still there today. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- What should I write? "It is deposited..."? Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Something like 'It was deposited in the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in Moscow, where it remains.' will do. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- What should I write? "It is deposited..."? Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but can it be made more specific that the specimen exists, as It was deposited... wouldn't necessarily be taken by all readers to mean the specimen is still there today. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the fossil itself still exists. It is later said (in history of research) that the specimen is in the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The prosomal appendages (limbs)… could limbs suffice here?
- Yes, but since the technical term "appendages" is used more times in the article, I think it's better to clarify what it is on its first mention. Also, the description itself uses technical terms, there is no reason to just change "appendages".
- Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but since the technical term "appendages" is used more times in the article, I think it's better to clarify what it is on its first mention. Also, the description itself uses technical terms, there is no reason to just change "appendages".
opisthosoma (abdomen) - the article Opisthosoma makes a distinction between an abdomen and an opisthosoma - does the distinction apply with Borchgrevinkium (the text implies that it doesn't)?
- In eurypterids (my original focus on paleontology), the opisthosoma and the abdomen seem to be the same, but I'm not sure about Borchgrevinkium, so I have removed "abdomen".
...12 segments… - 'twelve segments'? (MOS:NUMERAL gives no preference, but imo twelve looks better.
- I prefer to use digits when I talk about the segments, since in case the division between the preabdomen and the postabdomen is known (not in this case), scientific articles always use digits (or at least that's what I remember).
- All articles are expected use words up to ten, after that it becomes looser, which is why i asked. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer to use digits when I talk about the segments, since in case the division between the preabdomen and the postabdomen is known (not in this case), scientific articles always use digits (or at least that's what I remember).
- The image in this section seems to me superfluous to requirements, and skewed towards an American readership (personally, I've never seen a 25 cent coin, so it doesn't help me).
- It was supposed to include the euro as well, but it is not in public domain. The American dollar is one of the most internationally known currencies. There is no way to include a recognizable coin for the entire world.
- Why use a coin? the scale is shown on the right. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the coin serves as a reference object for the reader. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I can go with the coin, as few coins are much bigger or smaller than the one shown, but I still think that the image provides the article with very little extra information, and verges on being purely decorative. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for where I am coming from: it's a GA criteria that images must be significant and relevant. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well yes, it is not really essential but it is a habit of mine to add a size diagram in paleontological articles. I don't think it should be removed though, perhaps I could move the fossil of Weinbergina to the description and the size diagram to the classification? Super Ψ Dro 11:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well yes, it is not really essential but it is a habit of mine to add a size diagram in paleontological articles. I don't think it should be removed though, perhaps I could move the fossil of Weinbergina to the description and the size diagram to the classification? Super Ψ Dro 11:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I can go with the coin, as few coins are much bigger or smaller than the one shown, but I still think that the image provides the article with very little extra information, and verges on being purely decorative. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for where I am coming from: it's a GA criteria that images must be significant and relevant. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the coin serves as a reference object for the reader. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why use a coin? the scale is shown on the right. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It was supposed to include the euro as well, but it is not in public domain. The American dollar is one of the most internationally known currencies. There is no way to include a recognizable coin for the entire world.
History of research edit
…to the Russian paleontologist Nestor Ivanovich Novojilov, is followed by a reference, but it would be helpful if the actual page was cited (p. 2), not the page range of the whole article.
- For that I would have to change the format of all the references, which would have been ideal if I had done it while writing the article.
- I think it's appropriate to specify the page within a large document (see WP:PROVEIT, and also this checklist for GA reviewers by Ealdgyth, which includes 'Book references need the author, publishing date and page number' as a point to look for). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a requirement for GA (nor for FA), it is sure more comfortable (in fact I will probably start using it from now on), but it is not a requirement. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- The technical nature of the material in the sources listed for this article means it would be challenging for anyone to find some of the pages that verifies the text, even if they are knowledgeable in the field. As an editor, I find it very useful to record the page I used, as not being able to locate something easily in a large book is frustrating. Full inline citations are required if information is likely to be challenged, so let's agree that nobody will want to challenge what has been written about Borchgrevinkium. Then I think we're both right. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a requirement for GA (nor for FA), it is sure more comfortable (in fact I will probably start using it from now on), but it is not a requirement. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's appropriate to specify the page within a large document (see WP:PROVEIT, and also this checklist for GA reviewers by Ealdgyth, which includes 'Book references need the author, publishing date and page number' as a point to look for). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- For that I would have to change the format of all the references, which would have been ideal if I had done it while writing the article.
...PIN 1271/1, a nearly complete specimen. - a minor point, but 'a specimen labelled as PIN 1271/1, which was nearly complete.' would help explain the label.
- This is now noted on description, but done.
(minor point) - Borchgrevinkium was remitted to the family Woodwardopteridae together with Woodwardopterus in 1966 by the American paleontologist Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering - to help improve the prose here, consider 'In 1966, Borchgrevinkium, together with Woodwardopterus, was remitted to the family Woodwardopteridae by the American paleontologist Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering'.
- Done.
…, as if new a specimen had been found. - amend to 'believing that a specimen had been found..'?
- Yeah, I didn't know how to write that sentence, done.
- ...specimen has later been… - 'specimen was later…'. Also, is the date for the redesignation known?
- Do you mean as Borchgrevinkium sp. or as Diploaspis praecursor?
:... in 1966… - Reference 3 appear to say that the date was 1959 (p. 194 - if true, this page needs citing in the reference).
- Borchgrevinkium was classified into Woodwardopteridae in 1966, but this family already existed since 1959.
I can't find where Lau (Reference 4) states that a change in designation took place. Do you have a page for this?
- Yes, page 13, 22, 27 and 31, but these are just mentions, she didn't explain her reasons for calling the specimen like that.
- Ref. 4 mentions "Borchgrevinkium sp." four times, but another citation would be needed for This specimen was later designated as "Borchgrevinkium sp."., (ideally, one which has the date for the redesignation). Alternatively cut the sentence out. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it would be 2009 or 1966. Which one should I add? Lau was the first one to name it as Borchgrevinkium sp., but this was based in Kjellesvig-Waering's Silurian occurence. Perhaps I could use another word rather than "designated". Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- If Lau was the first to use that name, 'it was first named/designated as "Borchgrevinkium sp." by Lau' would be OK. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it would be 2009 or 1966. Which one should I add? Lau was the first one to name it as Borchgrevinkium sp., but this was based in Kjellesvig-Waering's Silurian occurence. Perhaps I could use another word rather than "designated". Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ref. 4 mentions "Borchgrevinkium sp." four times, but another citation would be needed for This specimen was later designated as "Borchgrevinkium sp."., (ideally, one which has the date for the redesignation). Alternatively cut the sentence out. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, page 13, 22, 27 and 31, but these are just mentions, she didn't explain her reasons for calling the specimen like that.
Nevertheless, this specimen was misidentified… - I'm unclear about this bit. When Lamsdell and Briggs redescribed the specimen, was it them who misidentified it, or did Ciurca?
- Ciurca. Now it should be clear.
...where it lays to date. - this needs to removed (see MOS:RELTIME).
- Done.
Ditto for Nowadays,… in the next section.
- Done.
The second and third paragraphs (and seemingly a part of the first one) are essentially a discussion of the classification of Borchgrevinkium: should this not be included in the next section?
- It is part of the history of Borchgrevinkium, it deserves a mention. The reasons given by the authors are further discussed in the classification section.
- Agreed that it should be included in the article, but why is so much about the classification of Borchgrevinkium contained in this section? There's little point imo of having a Classification section, if text that belongs in it is placed elsewhere. See MOS:BODY ('...articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs.') Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done. I think the part about the alleged second specimen is part of the history, so I didn't change it. The third paragraph could still be considered part of the classification, I just removed details, I can remove it if you want. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, it looks better now. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done. I think the part about the alleged second specimen is part of the history, so I didn't change it. The third paragraph could still be considered part of the classification, I just removed details, I can remove it if you want. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should be included in the article, but why is so much about the classification of Borchgrevinkium contained in this section? There's little point imo of having a Classification section, if text that belongs in it is placed elsewhere. See MOS:BODY ('...articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs.') Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is part of the history of Borchgrevinkium, it deserves a mention. The reasons given by the authors are further discussed in the classification section.
Classification edit
Borchgrevinkium was originally described as a mycteroptid eurypterid by Novojilov… - already mentioned in the text, so unnecessary here.
- With this I intend to "summarize" and remind the reader its original classification.
- There's no need to do this. I think you need to close at both sections again with a view to only providing the information from reference 1 once. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- With this I intend to "summarize" and remind the reader its original classification.
...although he also noted a certain resemblance to Weinbergina… - already mentioned when the text says He compared it with the then xiphosuran genus Weinbergina,… in the previous section.
- In the history of research, Weinbergina is mentioned so that the reader understands why Borchgrevinkium was considered a xiphosuran, while in classification it explains how they are similar.
- Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the history of research, Weinbergina is mentioned so that the reader understands why Borchgrevinkium was considered a xiphosuran, while in classification it explains how they are similar.
...inaccurate, inexhaustive and based only on the best preserved material. - inaccurate wasn't included with the other words on p. 1 (Reference 2). Do have a page to cite this?
- No, removed.
- In 1966, Kjellesvig-Waering classified Borchgrevinkium with Woodwardopterus in the family Woodwardopteridae. - already stated in the text.
- Removed (in history).
- Ditto Following this recommendation, Tollerton reclassified it in 1989 inside this order during his revision of Eurypterida.
- Removed (in history).
- Ditto In 2004, Tetlie did not support this change and transferred Borchgrevinkium as eurypterid…
- These three points have been explained in the last point of history of research, although the wording could change.
- You need to be concise at GA. There's no need for any information in the main body to be reproduced in this way, so it needs to be removed from here or further up in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- These three points have been explained in the last point of history of research, although the wording could change.
Prosomapoda was erected… - is this correct? (perhaps constructed/built)
- This word is used in several scientific articles, I have added it to avoid repetition of words.
- Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This word is used in several scientific articles, I have added it to avoid repetition of words.
Precede …the position of Borchgrevinkium potentially falls somewhere in the blue area. with 'In the cladogram shown below,…'.
- Done.
- I can't seem to find the place in Lamsdell (Reference 8) where the information in the last sentence is referred to. Can you provide a page number?
- No, that was my idea since Borchgrevinkium does not represent either a xiphosuran or a planaterg, so its classification is most likely among the stem genera. I admit that this can be considered original research.
- WP:STICKTOSOURCE provides clear guidance, and the article mustn't contain original research. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Should I remove it then? I would have to also delete the rest of the paragraph and the cladogram. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Take out anything that could be construed as original research, and if the cladogram still has a place in the article, keep it there. Lamsdell includes Borchgrevinkium within Prosomopoda, so imo the cladogram is still relevant. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Should I remove it then? I would have to also delete the rest of the paragraph and the cladogram. Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:STICKTOSOURCE provides clear guidance, and the article mustn't contain original research. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, that was my idea since Borchgrevinkium does not represent either a xiphosuran or a planaterg, so its classification is most likely among the stem genera. I admit that this can be considered original research.
Is the source for the cladoform known?
- You mean cladogram? Yes, reference 8.
- Thanks, found it on p. 15 (page needs to be cited). Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- You mean cladogram? Yes, reference 8.
Paleoecology edit
Consider improving the prose in this section by amending to 'When the only known specimen of Borchgrevinkium was recovered in Early Devonian deposits, it was found…' (or something similar). If you still want to specify the location, I would stick to the Taymyr Peninsula, and not Taymyria (Taymyr Autonomous Okrug).
- I don't see the former as necessary, but I have replaced "Taymyria" with "Taymyr Peninsula".
...like Acutiramus. - consider amending this, as Acutiramus is a genus, not a species.
- Done.
References edit
Reference 7 - add the (password-protected) template for this source, I think it's the only one in the whole article that can't be downloaded directly.
- Done.
I'm placing the article on hold for a week. Please come back to me with any queries. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- A question, the image you added is based on a source or have you taken it directly from it? I think it is still subject to copyright. Super Ψ Dro 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not copy, as I produced an SVG file from the diagram, which avoided losing quite as much detail as the previous image. Not fussed if you want to revert it back to the other one. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I just wanted to be sure, I have no problem with it staying. Can I make its background transparent like the image before? Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I just wanted to be sure, I have no problem with it staying. Can I make its background transparent like the image before? Super Ψ Dro 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not copy, as I produced an SVG file from the diagram, which avoided losing quite as much detail as the previous image. Not fussed if you want to revert it back to the other one. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Close to passing edit
Hello Super Dromaeosaurus, thanks for your work over the last few days, the article is almost ready to pass now. as we have agreed on all the important bits. I'll read it through for any minor corrections that might need doing, and tweak things myself. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Passed edit
Definitely a GA, congratulations. Passing now. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)