Talk:Forfarella

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• I know absolutely nothing about these animals, so I hope I'll learn something by reviewing! FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this article! Chasmataspidids are pretty similar to eurypterids, although you might get a bit confused by the different morphology. Super Ψ Dro 11:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I learned most of what i know form eurypterids from reviewing articles here, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps even state in the infobox caption that it's the only known specimen? Like "holotype and only known specimen of"?

Done.

• Since the focus is the genus, shouldn't you refer to it mainly as Forfarella instead of the binomial throughout?

The most used name in the article is "Forfarella", but I like to alternate a bit with the binominal one.

Hmm, I think it's best to be consistent for clarity and to make it easier to follow for the reader, unless there is a specific reason to use the binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There are only two places where the use of the binomial name is not completely necessary, in the description and in its image. In the image I would prefer to make clear what species it is in case a new one is described and simply because I usually specify it in the images of other articles. This last thing also applies to the beginning of the description. I think the rest of the mentions are neccessary. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• "with the size of its only known specimen" The only specimen would probably sound more natural.

Done.

• "estimated at only 1.7 centimetres (0.67 inches)." Add "in length".

Done.

• "Although the details on its surface are little preserved" Say "Altough few details on its surface are preserved"?

I wanted to look at the original description before answering this and it turns out that it says that the carapace details are not preserved... I've rewritten the sentence.

• Link tubercle.

Done.

• No size diagram? Not that it's necessarily needed for all taxa...

Chasmataspidids in general are ridiculously small in size, so I thought it wouldn't be necessary.

• "subtrapezoidal (nearly as a trapezoid)" Nearly trapezoidal might flow better might the preceding.

Done. I preferred to keep mentioning "subtrapezoidal" since it is apparently a diagnostic characteristic of Forfarella.

• "Vague impressions distinguish the second, third and fourth tergites" Why present tense when all the surrounding text is past tense?

Because that refers to the fossil, while the rest to the animal. I was not quite sure if it was correct when I wrote that, maybe there is a better way.

• "Location of Arbroath, a town near of which the" Near where might sound better...

Changed.

• " it was concluded that the Kelly Den stream section" By who and when?

By Dunlop, Anderson and Braddy. I would rather avoid mentioning them until the last paragraph as there is where they are most relevant. I added "in a subsequent study", but maybe if you prefer it, I could use "in a 1999 study" instead.

• What do the names mean?

I am sure that mitchelli refers to the fossil collector Mitchell and Forfarella probably refers to the city of Forfar, unfortunately this is not specified in any academic article and I cannot include it.

• Link Diploaspididae in the article body? I'm sure it will be created one day...

I'm actually surprised that I didn't link it earlier. It is now mentioned in the lead too.

• "Forfarella coincided with these features" Not sure if coincided is the right word, "possessed these features?"?

Done.

• "Forfarella is a poorly preserved genus only known from one single specimen,[1] and it has not been included to date in any phylogenetic analysis or cladogram.[6]" Since the first part of the sentence has alreayd been stated, I think you could rephrase it sop that its imperfectness comes afterwards as a cause. For examp0e "Forfarella has not been included in any phylogenetic analysis or cladogram to date due to it only being known from a single, poorly preserved specimen"

That is a good idea, but then I would be directly indicating that this is the reason why it has not been included in any phylogenetic analysis. Braddy 2017 just says something like "A number of Devonian taxa such as [...] and Forfarella have not been included in any phylogenetic analysis".

Isn't the first part of the sentence then implying that's the reason why it has not been included? That's how I read it, and probably how most would, so maybe "Forfarella is a poorly preserved genus only known from one single specimen" should be removed since it's repetitive anyway, and may create a misleading conclusion? FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does imply that, but indirectly. I didn't claim anywhere that this is indeed the reason why it has not been added to any phylogenetic analysis; I'm letting the reader figure it out for themselves as the sources don't say it directly. I don't know if I'm making my point understood, but I think that removing the first half of the sentence and leaving the rest would make it a bit weird and inadequate for a single paragraph. I think that what we have now is the best that can be achieved. Super Ψ Dro 22:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If the short paragraph is the issue, why not just merge it into the one underneath? My concern is that is now a bit like WP:synth ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source"), where a cause and effect is implied by the juxtaposition of the information. So the best we can do is to look at how the source puts it. If it does not put this information close together, we probably shouldn't either? FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've merged the sentence in the rest of the article. Super Ψ Dro 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• "(i.e. a "ghost" range)" Link ghost lineage.

I was sure that a page like that had to exist! Linked.

• "This also suggests that other diploaspidids similar to Diploaspis, such as Achanarraspis or Forfarella, could have specimens from earlier times" It is a bit odd to tay that a taxon has specimen, instead you could say that there could be specimens of these genera from earlier times.

Sure, done.

• "The single and type species, F. mitchelli, is known from one single specimen" The double "single" is a bit repetitive, how about "the type and only species"?

Done, I have preferred to change it in the second mention of "single" to avoid altering the link of "type species".

• "south of Arbirlot" State again outside the intro that this is a village.

Done.

• "with unknown eyes" Sounds a bit cryptic, how about just "its eyes are unknown"?

I used "with its eyes being unknown but maybe represented by a tubercle in the fossil".

• " that Forfarella used to swim actively" Missing "with" somewhere.

I think the sentence is correct, I can only think of "used to swim with actively" and that sounds wrong to me.

• "It was very small, only reaching 1.7 centimetres (0.67 inches) of length." Should probably come first instead of last in the intro description paragraph.

Done.

• "meaning that it lived in a lake." Probably not a lake, but in lakes?

Yeah, done.

• You could maybe briefly explain what a chasmataspidid is under classification?

I think it is a bit excessive for a genus, and I have only come across very technical definitions that cannot be easily summarized...

• Alright, that's all from me, will promote! Hope we'll see more odd prehistoric arthropods at GAN and FAC, I've been missing them! FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the review! Lately I have changed my edit focus, so it is unlikely that I will nominate many more for now... except for Pruemopterus, which I will finish probably in early November. Super Ψ Dro 09:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)