I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to FA and I would be interested in what improvements would need to be made to get it to that level as I haven't tackled improving something to FA yet.
Thanks,
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
08:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)reply
At first glance, I see some duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
[1]
I thought I'd managed to remove all the duplinks! I removed the remaining ones I could find, the script erroneously shows some remaining links as duplinks since some things are linked both in the lead and in the rest of the article.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
19:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Not all writers mentioned are presented with full names, occupations, etc.
Seems that pretelson is shown from two angles in the original image
[2], why not include both in the image in the article? Looking at Commons, it seems the specimen was depicted form even more angles
[3], maybe a compilation image that includes them al could be made.
It would probably be good for the FAC to add a citation in the Commons description of the life restoration to where the anatomy can be verified (they usually ask this for dinosaur restorations and so on). Could just be to a paper that includes a matching reconstruction or photo of a fossil.
You seem to be mixing UK and US English. You have for example metre and centimetre, but also paleobiology and paleoecology.
I've changed metre and centimetre to meter and centimeter respectively, but I doubt I've catched all examples of UK English, this might be something that can be entirely fixed during a copy edit?
"Jaekelopterus is diagnosed as a pterygotid" Would sound like gibberish to most readers, why not just say it can be "distinguished from other preygotids by..."?
Asking here, where have you found that Tetlie is German? Some searches on Google seem to indicate that he is Norwegian and lives in the municipality of Overhalla. You can see an indication of it in
this book, for example.
SuperΨDro23:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
"characteristic of Pterygotus, with other discovered elements differing very little from previously known species of Pterygotus" Second Pterygotus could be "that genus" to avoid repetition.
"by German paleontologist Otto Jaekel based" Always give dates for naming and revisions. Is usually also give names and dates for any other studies mentioned.
"The generic name is composed of a patronym" A patronym? Is this really what the source says? It is just Jaekel's last name? A patronym is a given name that refers to a male ancestor.
No this is not what the source says. If I remember correctly, this was done by another editor who disagreed with the previous simple "the name means Jaekel's wing" (or something like that) that I had put in. Should I change it back to something like that?
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
10:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It would probably make more sense to list the differences between the two species in the description rather than the history section. For example, why is the size of J. howelli listed under history rather than description?
"Though differences have been noted in chelicerae, chelicerae have been questioned" Instead of repeating chelicerae, perhaps say "these structures" at second mention.
None of the claims given in the first paragrpgh of classification are attributed to any authors, though much of it seems to be the conclusions reached in specific studies.
"Jaekelopterus had previously been classified as a basal sister-taxon" Likewise, by who and when? Give such info for all revisions and studies mentioned.
You give conversions for measurements in the description, but these should also be given elsewhere in the article, for example the cladogram and palaeobiology.
"Some researchers have suggested" As before, best to name them, in all sections where studies are discussed, and especially when there are competing views.
"Trace fossil evidence of eurypterids also supports such a conclusion, with eurypterids migrating to nearshore environments to mate and spawn" The latter part of the sentence seems detached, perhaps start it with "indicating that eurypterids migrated to" or similar.
"The morphology and body construction of Jaekelopterus and other eurypterids in the Pterygotidae suggests they were adapted to a completely aquatic lifestyle. American paleontologist Simon J. Braddy, German paleontologist Markus Poschmann and Norwegian paleontologist O. Erik Tetlie considered in a 2007 study that it was highly unlikely that an arthropod with the size and build of Jaekelopterus would be able to walk on land.[1]" Isn't this more relevant under palaeoecology than in the description?
"Jaekelopterus is a genus of giant predatory eurypterid," This implies the genus as a whole was giant, but since one species was pretty small, it seems a bit misleading?
"and have been referred to two known species" Seems a strange way to put it; surely the species had to be based on the fossils before they could be referred to them?
"the type species J. rhenaniae from freshwater strata in the Rhineland and J. howelli from estuarine strata" This distinction isn't mentioned in the article body, and would be very fitting in the palaeoecology section.
Likewise, give more physical description than just size in the intro. You could also mention that the species were originally assigned to another genus.
"the strata in which Jaekelopterus has been found suggest that it dwelled in freshwater systems and estuarie" This seems repetitive, as you already state this earlier in the intro.
Now that the paleoecology section is much longer, I wonder if there would be room for one more image from the Lamsdell and Selden paper. Or maybe it's just me who's a sucker for images, hehe...
Cool, I wonder if they should be staggered, but no big deal. I would keep this peer review open until after the copy edit is done, in case more people want to comment. Perhaps
Super Dromaeosaurus has something to say?
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
FunkMonk:, so the copy-edit is done and I believe I'm ready to nominate this for FAC. Since it's a requirement (and if there is nothing left to add here?) maybe this peer review could be closed?
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah, unless you want further reviews here, of course. A last thing, the copy-editor changed meters to metres, but I'm unsure which English variety you used; I see both words like "behaviour" and "paleo". This should probably be made consistent before FAC.
FunkMonk (
talk)
09:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure more people are going to weigh in here since this is no longer on the
list of unanswered reviews but if there are more people with things to add they are of course most welcome. I was mostly going for US English (but I'm not the best at differentiating the two), I've changed every instance of "metre" into "meter" and behaviour to behavior.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
09:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply