Well, I might as well take up this review, gonna be my first of a eurypterid. The article overall looks good, but it could use more images, but considering the type of taxon and fragmentary nature I don't know what more could be added, maybe a map of the localities for Discovery? IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I'll let the description being first slide, its recommended on the dinoproject that the history is first, but idk about here
Discovery first would help with explaining specimen numbers (BGS should be linked) and material completeness
This has been brought up before in one of the other eurypterid GA reviews, but I have in general put description first in these and changing them all back would be quite difficult. There are other prehistoric animal GA:s with description before discovery. Linked BGS at its first mention.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Butting in here, the majority of dinosaur articles have description first, so I have no idea how it became a guideline that discovery should be first (a recent addition in any case). Anyhow, I've changed the guideline to state it is optional.
FunkMonk (
talk)
12:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
2nd para: Either move the [4] reference to the end of the sentence, or remove the [3] at the end since [3] is references at the end of the paragraph already
There is no information from the original description (which isn't even cited) or the description of S. longilabium, which are both probably important.IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}05:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Added from the original description of S. abbreviatus, will add for S. longilabium as well.
The desciption of S. longilabium, Kjellesvig-Waering 1961, is actually already cited, as the citation for the paragraph about it under "history".
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)reply
History:
I think it would be best if the first paragraph basically cited Salter and summed up what he thought of the taxon, instead of skipping that rather important part of history
Because it is fragmentary and only referred to Salteropterus because of it being similar to the related Slimonia (but not enough to be in that genus) and the only other slimonid that is in the correct area and period of time is Salteropterus. Added a "making its assignment to the genus dubious" at the end of this part of the text.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Have there been any other phylogenetic analyses with it?
None that I could find, it is quite fragmentary and any analysis that includes something slimonid at all seem to settle for just Slimonia. The cladogram is not based on a phylogenetic analysis since none including Salteropterus seem to exist, but rather that the paper cited states that "The characters discussed here suggest the phylogeny of the Pterygotoidea has a topology like this: (Hughmilleria (Herefordopterus ((Slimonia + ? Salteropterus) (pterygotids))))." which is as close as I can get to a phylogeny for the taxon.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)reply
If the species are noted might be good to use their full binomials on the cladogram, some taxa have multiple species
The note on possible diet seems more like Paleobiology than Paleoecology, so maybe rename the whole section Paleobiology? (ecology falls under biology anyways)IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}00:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Looking at the above point, the article should probably use british english since the fossils are from Britain. If you need help with this I grew up using the british spellings
I find it appealing to cite the works noted in the taxon box (eg. "Salter, 1859[5]") so that the paper is associated with the author and date. Helps with finding out more information especially when there are multiple by one author in a year.IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}18:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I think citations for the other mentions would be good too (Kjellesvig-Waering, 1951, Kjellesvig-Waering, 1961 and the second mention of Salter, 1859). It just keeps consistency while helping the reader as much as possible with knowing where things come from. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I checked Kjellesvig-Waering and S. longilabium is from Leintwardine, Herefordshire, England. Not Lesmahagow. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}22:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply