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
This article was copy edited by Fluffernutter, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 February 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 July 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Slate Weasel, I'm sorry to have to bother you again. I have researched more about the genus and it seems that O. augusti was larger, measuring a total of 14.3 cm in length, I guess the document I took the measurements of only took the length of the holotype. Also the differences between the species are virtually more notable than I thought. O. kokomoensis and O. pumilus should not have those prolongations at the end of the swimming leg, as well as a slightly shorter terminal spine (but this can be omitted) and a considerably longer telson. In addition, O. kokomoensis had two lateral extensions in the last segment, which none of the other species had. This image of a fossil of O. kokomoensis can also serve as a reference for O. pumilus except in those extensions of the last segment. There are more images in the article if you need more. Can you change the current silhouettes according to these changes? SuperΨDro21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
The History of Research section is way too long, especially in proportion to the "Paleoecology" and "Paleobiology" sections, which are the meat of the article because they are about the species. It needs to be cut down.
Undetermined
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
Wow, the article got hugely revamped in a single edit! I'm impressed.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Are there any colored holotypes to be found for the genus? Adding a colored picture would help, but there might not be one, so this is a relatively minor point.
Even so, I'm not sure all the details in the section are particularly necessary, although there might be certain conventions for extinct arthropods that I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the due diligence to find all the details in the first place. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Butting in here, saying a section should be cut down because other sections are shorter is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the GA criteria, and it makes sense the section is longer since it covers more than a century of research. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I understand where you're coming from, User:FunkMonk, but my words have been misinterpreted. Keeping things in proportion, covering all the main subtopics to the article subject without going into unnecessary detail, is one of the criteria for GA articles. What I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that all the details in the section are relevant and that the size of the section makes the reader give outsized weight to the "History of Research" part of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I had something like "First discoveries" and "Description of subsequent species" in mind. I do not agree with removing details, I think everything is useful in some way. SuperΨDro14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I agree with the splitting up the section. As to cutting down certain details, I'll take another look at the sections to pinpoint where I think it's too much. It might not even be the details themselves so much as the wording. If I find that, reviewing the article, I'm wrong, then the article definitely should be GA. If not, we'll work together to fix it. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Good job writing this article! While I was uneasy about the length of the first section, breaking it up has helped a lot. I want to congratulate you on your work to bring this obscure species to GA status. The organization and prose were clear and there was a good depth of detail. Gug01 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noticed this at the guild request, and couldn't help but tweak a couple things. I'll do some more if it seems helpful, or step aside and let the guild do their job. Like everything biological, an interesting article. cygnis insignis07:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed similar discussions of O. kokomoensis and O. augusti in the lead and description.
From the lead:
The largest species of the genus was O. kokomoensis with a total length of 16 centimetres (6.3 inches) long, followed by O. augusti (14.3 cm, 5.6 in) and O. pumilus (4 cm, 1.6 in).
From the description:
The size of the largest one, O. kokomoensis, is estimated at 16 cm (6.3 in), representing the biggest species of the family Onychopterellidae. O. augusti had a similar size, with the largest specimen reaching 14.3 cm (5.6 in).
This isn't my area of expertise so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of someone more knowledgeable to determine whether an edit is necessary or would be beneficial.
--Theleot (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well since the lead is supposed to summarize the content that is present in the rest of the article I don't really see what the problem is with information on how large the animal is featuring in both the lead and the description. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply