This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Talk:Opabinia is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
I deleted the word "curious" from the first sentence today for being unencyclopedic. Another user then inserted "enigmatic", asking in the edit summary if "enigmatic" is more encyclopedic than "curious". I'm going to revert. In the case anyone disagrees, please post here first. Subversive21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomic classification given here for Dinocarids is not in agreement with the one in Wikispecies. Note that Dinocarida is there described as a phylum, not a class; and that Opabinida is given as one of the order (presumably the one for Opabinia species), not Radiodonta. Does anyone know which one is right? Any new information on current taxonomical classification of Opabinids? (My guess is the Wikispecies people know best; if nobody answers, I'll change the classification to match what I see there.)
Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods - "comparison between the dorsal spines of Cambrian lobopods and small shelly fossils suggest that Cambrian lobopods might have originated from the Meishucun radiation and diversified in the Qiongzhusi radiation."
This review is transcluded from Talk:Opabinia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. It looks like a very interesting article. I will be adding comments as I read through it. Please feel free to add comments or to contact me. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it was thought to be" is repeated in the lead. For variety, other wording should be used. Also, it is in the passive voice. If possible, it would be better to say who thought it rather than being indirect.
Done "Opabinia looks so strange that the audience at the first presentation of Whittington's analysis laughed." This needs a direct citation. -- Philcha (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is very good. You have done an excellent job. There are a few irregular things like using quotes for words like "aunt" and "cousins" but I assume that the referenced text used those words as well. And for "triangles", the quotes seem the best way to go.
Re "triangles", I'm glad you agree. IIRC the refs use "sub-triangular ...", which would have to be explained without using the (copyright) pics in the refs.
"Aunts and cousins" appears to be my own coinage, but make the family tree implications obvious - including that the concepts are relative, see the comments on tardigrades. "Aunts and cousins" are an extension of "sister-group", which is common in the literature. I chose this approach because Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible encourages the use of familiar analogies - e.g. I used a couple in Tyrannosaurus#Locomotion to avoid having to explain the physics of angular momentum, and everyone seemed happy with that. In a lot of WP paleo articles I think "aunts and cousins" does the job without the need to refer to and explain stem groups, etc. In this case I had to define "stem group" etc. in the theoretical section because historically the theory and the finds of other lobopods combined to change the evaluation of Opabinia's implications for the Cambrian explosion. But that's at the end, and I think the analogy does the job well earlier in the article. -- Philcha (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if lobe+gill should be spelled out more formally: lobe-plus-gill or lobe plus gill.
If I had to change it, I'd want the hyphenated version, as it's the combination that's significant. I went for "lobe+gill" becuase I think that makes the point even more visibly.
Under Further reading the books need isbns.
Removed the section:Gould is cited (incl ISBN); Opabinia fossils have been found (so far) only in Burgess Shale, not Chengjiang. -- Philcha (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a slightly better version of the 'comparative sizes' image under 'History of discovery' - the text is unreadable on expansion. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can (barely) read the text in the image, mostly because I'm using a desktop computer with a large screen. @Jackiespeel:, I'm presuming that you're reading from a tablet or similar handheld device? Perhaps we could ask @DinoGuy2: if he could modify the text?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was using a computer too (and clicking on the image): the text is readable now.
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done "Opabinia looks so strange that the audience at the first presentation of Whittington's analysis laughed." This needs a direct citation. -- Philcha (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS): 
