Talk:Pterygotus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePterygotus 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.
Good topic starPterygotus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2018Good article nomineeListed
September 25, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Info[edit]

I created this from reasonably shabby laymans knowledge, and don't have enough info to make it any larger. However, I feel it either needs someone to fill it in, or for it to be merged and redirected to Eurypterid. As for the factual info, it's all correct even if I'm no scholar on the subject. 6 pairs of legs, not 4 or 8, as discussed on that page.--TVPR 08:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're mistaken, because you're only counting their "walking" legs, not appendages like their pinchers.--Kaz 21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Then I stand corrected. However, original measure form is metric. I put a rough imperial equivalent in parentheses instead of just outright replacing the original form. --TVPR 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight[edit]

Has anybody come across a weight estimate for this thing? PenguinJockey 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anatomical Description[edit]

I added an anatomical description from the TIP, thereby doubling the number of sources used in the article! Damn it feels good to be a gangsta!--Digthepast (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We should also get started on Pterygotidae, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Done!--Digthepast (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Might as well make myself more versed in eurypterid anatomy and such right ;) I'll start looking over the article here soon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Description

  • I would highly recommend using the {{convert}} template whenever there are measurements, as it converts easily and automatically between metric and imperial and other odd units (long vs short vs tonne). If you need assistance with some aspects (like making square brackets for when the conversion is already within brackets) I can help
  • I normally have description of family/higher rank traits in the classification, but its up to you here
    • Figured since the pterygotids mostly look the same as each other and are arguably oversplit and as most readers might not know much about how eurypterid groups differ from each other in appearance it would be helpful to describe the group in general. Very little can be said that only pertains to Pterygotus in terms of how it would have looked like. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Link pterygotid and eurypterid first mention
  • Link telson
  • Link robust, claws and teeth
    • Linked robust and claws. The "tooth" article only pertains to the teeth found in jaws, not the "teeth" on claws. Teeth may not be the best term here but it is what is used in papers pertaining to eurypterids. Not sure what to link here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As the telson being different is mentioned above the "Another feature ..." is redundant
  • I prefer multiple references at the end of a sentence to ones following commas. Aesthetic choice
  • Link distal
  • Rearrange some of the descriptive terms that are linked and bracketted higher up in the description to their first use (claws and telson)
  • Link type species and Estonia(n)
  • Mentioning all the sizes in a separate section means they can be removed from the first paragraph, only the largest and smallest need to be mentioned in that paragraph IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Removed all except largest and smallest from the paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

History

  • "Pterygotus" doesn't need quotation marks
  • "large fish, Pterygotus ..." I believe a semicolon is appropriate instead of a comma
  • The two paragraphs on P. bolivianus could be merged
  • Not quite sure what a "free ramus" is: if it has been linked or described before or not
    • Added an explanation, not the most technical one but it should make it clear what the term refers to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Middle Devonian P. gaspesiensis (1953, Canada)" as a Canadian I am mildly offended that the American species have their states/province listed but not the Canadian one, especially considering Canada is larger than the US
    • I apologize for this unfortunate slight against your nation but I'm going to have to blame the source used for only putting its location as "Canada". I have added in its location as the more precise "Quebec, Canada" based on another source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No discussion of P. carmani, P. cobbi, P. gaspesiensis, P. ludensis, ?P. formosus, P. nobilis, P. siemiradzkii
    • I think P. problematicus should also be discussed. I know that it has been considered a nomen vanum, but it is one more species that should have its own inclusion in the article, perhaps under the "Initial finds" section. Super Ψ Dro 18:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I have added stuff on P. carmani, P. nobilis and P. siemiradzkii but I'm having trouble finding anything to go on for the rest other than descriptions of other species that state how they compare to some of their features. @Super Dromaeosaurus: do you have any references for P. problematicus?
        • It seems that this is its first description: [1]. This can also be helpful: [2]. By the way, the ping did not work... Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
          • P. problematicus is now discussed in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • All species with the exception of P. formosus are now discussed in the article. It has proven inexplicably difficult to track down anything to go on for this one. This paper posits that it was originally described in this work, but as you can see this is a work that from a quick browsing through (pdf version) obviously deals with plants almost entirely. Though Pterygotus is referenced in the beginning as occuring at the same localities as some of the plants I see no new species of it being described and as far as I have been able to see no mention of anything with the species name "formosus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright thats fine. If you can find any other sources on it that would be great but its not necessary. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The question marks in the taxonbox for P. grandidentatus and P. impacatus aren't given reasons in the text
  • With all the different species, maybe create some internal article links so if you click on "P. lightbodyi" in the "Further discoveries" it sends you down to the section where it is discussed? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Classification

  • Not much to say, an image of a related taxon might be nice. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Paleobiology

  • "closely related giant pterygotid" we have already established its close relationship and large size, probably redundant here
  • Parahughmilleria needs a link
  • It's odd for one paragraph to use species while the other uses genera only, I'd suggest only genera simply because of how many taxa
  • You could subsection Paleobiology into Ecology and Behavior
  • The ecology for all species aren't discussed, I'd recommend stating somewhere if species were found alone or otherwise simply state "_ lived alongside the same taxa as _" if there would be repetition IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Will get to this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • All species are now discussed under ecology, again with the exception of P. formosus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

  • All image captions should state the species, some do not
    • Done for all fossil images. Can't add a species identification to the two restorations lacking it since none is noted by the artists. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There appears to be photos of both the slab and counterslab of a single specimen, with identical captions. Perhaps a better unique image could be used there? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Replaced with new image of species and body part previously not pictured. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Struck out comments, I think only the few points left remain to be corrected. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Looks like everything is done, time to give it the green plus! IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to conduct the review! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)