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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'll review this. @Super Dromaeosaurus:, I can see you're not the majority author but you say that there's an explanation. I'm more than okay with reviewing it even without Ichthyovenator since their inactive. 🏵️Etrius (Us)18:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge fan of only two sources, especially since the vast majority of the article is derived from one source. I'll need to see if there is any policy on using so little sourcing for GA. I'll also conduct a more exhaustive source review to see if there are more sources out there
Only three sources show up on google scholar and nothing appears on the WPL.
One of them is the original description (the main source of this article), and another one as you mentioned before just has a passing mention of Pruemopterus. I've checked the third one [2], it has two passing mentions of the genus again without substantial information. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to assume good faith, both are paywalled
It should be noted that multiple tertiary sources claim the species was discovered in 2021, but the original paper was published in 2020. The current article is correct.
In the opening sentence? I think "monotypic" could be too technical for it, and in any case it is immediately specified that the genus has one species later.
The generic name is derived... run on sentence with awkward wording
Rewritten to The name of the genus is derived.
'which co-occurred' co-occurred is a colloquialism
Does which lived during the same epoch as Pruemopterus fix it?
(possibly a younger growth stage of the species Parahughmilleria major) unnecessary
I think it's an important detail, the text is saying comparisons have been made between Pruemopterus and a problematic species which might actually not be a valid species but a synonym of another, it briefly explains the taxonomical situation of the compared species.
The genus Unionopterus, probably an adelophthalmid, is fragmentarily known, which complicates comparisons, A bunch of unnecessary fluff
I also think this is relevant information, it suggests any comparisons between Unionopterus and Pruemopterus should be done with caution as the former is fragmentarily known, even if they may appear substantially different.
'History of research' renamed to 'Taxonomy and Discovery', this is more concise and descriptive
Disagree for the sake of consistency throughout eurypterid articles, we have three eurypterid FAs (Megarachne, Onychopterella and Megalograptus) and this is the structure they use.
The only known specimen... run-on, and overly detailed sentence
Split it into two, and shortened it a bit.
'Classification' what warrants this as it's own section, merge with preceding section
Also disagree for the same reason as the "History of research" section, it is the standard in eurypterid articles. I've moved info from the description section to the classification one as the description should be strictly about the genus and not about how does it compare to other relatives.
a "classic" Early Devonian fossil what does classic mean in this context, it's unclear.
Seems superfluous and it is not a technical term in taxonomy or geology, the word's use in the original source doesn't seem too important, so I've removed it.
After raising this with WP:GA, the consensus is that only a few sources for a species/genus page is fine. I made some edits of my own, including moving a half paragraph to where I felt it made more sense, please review my changes and feel free to revert if you disagree. All-in-all, nothing too serious. Placing on hold. 🏵️Etrius (Us)01:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not super thrilled about the layout of the article but I see there's at least precedent for it. I made a few additional edits. Signing off on GA, congrats!!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
