Talk:Jaekelopterus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I've fixed a couple of trivial layout errors.

• Perhaps say in the first sentence that it's an arthropod, as "eurypterid" won't be familiar to all readers.
  • Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ancient Greek pteron really only meant "wing".
  • Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• You've helpfully glossed chelicera as "claw" in the text; it should also be glossed in the lead.
  • It is glossed as claw in the lead ("Based on the isolated fossil remains of a large chelicera (claw) from the Klerf Formation of Germany...")? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please wikilink apex predator, Cope's Rule.
  • Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please explain telson, stergite, opisthosome, metastoma when first mentioned (either in text or preferably with a diagram).
  • Done. Explained in text since they first appear at different points in the text and fitting in a diagram would be difficult. "Opisthosome" only appears in the context of "Opisthosomal appendages", but I explained the term there either way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• How do we know it had "good swimming abilities", specially if it had a lightweight build? Would that not have meant weak muscles and low speed?
  • Fixed this, the paper actually states that pterygotids were likely highly agile, but not necessarily fast. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig can't find anything above "unlikely".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'd say so, not presuming knowledge of the literature.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well, welcome to the GA process. I've tidied up the refs a little. If you're thinking to go on to FAC, be advised that they look really hard at the refs, which must all be formatted exactly the same way, and you'll have to be very careful with how any primary sources are used, too. It would be very much appreciated if you'd take the time to review one or two articles from the list of GA nominations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review the article and for the tips. I'll browse through the list of nominations to see if there's anything I feel knowledgeable enough about to review. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)