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
I'll take this one, so we can see how it can be prepared for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the duplicate links now removed, the ones that remain I believe are justifiable (linking the animal's home environment, the Solnhofen Limestone, in the section about its home environment seems right even if it was already linked much higher up in another section)
Redirect pages have now all been made
I already did my best to solve the issues proposed at the FAC back before it closed, though it seemed to have been too late as it didnt gain enough consensus for uplisting
The blurry images have been replaced with higher quality versions
At first glance, there is a bunch of WP:duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram), which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
Redirect all species and synonyms.
Have all issues brought up at the last FAC been solved?
The images from old journals are rather low res, it seems to me that some of them exist in higher res if you zoom in more:[2] What method did you use to extract them?
Fixes look good, it's easier to keep track of what has been dealt with if you answer under each individual point, that's also what will be expected at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This[3] image could perhaps also be found in a higher res version?
I've tried getting that figure again but everything I do either gets the same resolution or lower, so this is the best I've managed to get. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which page, if I want to give it a try? Exact page could also be given as image source on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plate 3 on page 227, this link should take you there. Olmagon (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, seems like it's just so small that it can't be helped. But I added the direct page links to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps introduce the people mentioned by occupation and nationality?
Done (in Discovery and naming anyways) Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"from the Redenbacher collection" Any details on what that is? A personal collection? Some institution?
Seems to be part of the Berlin Natural History Museum, added that now. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2006, Garassino and Schweigert" Why not give full names for them too?
Many names under Classification that need the same treatment.
This one I'm not so sure of since using surnames and the years in brackets is how in text citing of papers is done usually but if there is a guideline or insistence on the change I can do it still. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we for some reason usually place classification sections after description in prehistoric reptile articles, it could maybe be argued that it would make sense after the history section here, because the two seem to be very intertwined. Perhaps I'll bring it up on the Paleoproject Discord to see what people think.
There's now some WP:image sandwiching between the second and third images in the article, could be arranged in a more staggered way maybe.
Still seems to be an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After several tries that resulted in things which looked really ugly I decided to use the multiple image format instead, think this is better now. Olmagon (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but I wonder if it could look even neater if the image of the type species was left aligned directly under Discovery and naming, then the two assigned species could be grouped in a double image on the right under Species. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The type species pics are now aligned left, from what I can see this produces the sandwiching that we were trying to lose in the first place. Olmagon (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention museum in the infobox photo's image caption?
I don't think Solnhofen Limestone needs to be linked in both discovery and its species subsection.
Removed link from the latter. Olmagon (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to give etymologies for the individual species names?
While I would want to do that, in the papers describing each species (except P. lemovices) I saw no mention of any etymology. I assume the specific names of P. minor and P. pusillus mean "small" or something like that but I just can't find the confirmation. Olmagon (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do, then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and only the original illustration remains" Seems it would be quite valuable to find and show this illustration, then?
Problem here is that I haven't been able to access the publication this illustration is in, if I ever do though I would add it. Olmagon (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the citation, if I want to have a look? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 9 on the reference list (Fraas, Oscar (1878). Geologisches aus dem Libanon. Schweizerbart). Should be in German. Olmagon (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an incomplete title, should be "Geologische Beobachtungen am Libanon". More complete Google books version:[4]FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the text is on Commons, and covers P. minor at the bottom here:[5] This is the image:[6] And here is the description of the image:[7]FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and it is difficult to tell from the original line drawing of the specimen" As above?
van Straelen died in 1964, which is less than 70 years ago, and he wasn't American so I'm not sure Wikimedia copyright policies would let me put the drawing in. Olmagon (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not free then, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I still remember 10 years later I'll upload that drawing to Commons. Olmagon (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I wrote Mimodactylus, which perhaps lived alongside some of these species.
I wonder if "Valid species" is the correct way to put it; the reassigned species are also "valid", they just aren't recognised as part of this genus. Furthermore, the text indicates that some of them may not even be valid. Maybe just say "species" or "recognized species>"?
I originally meant species that still have Pseudastacus as their latest placement, I guess just "species" is better. Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Pseudastacus is a small invertebrate" Extreme broad term, why not just say crustacean?
Changed to crustacean Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) (excluding the rostrum)" Looks a bit wonky with the double parenthesis, how about just comma before "excluding the rostrum"?
Removed the parentheses, comma used instead. Olmagon (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The uropods" Explain this in parenthesis like you do with other uncommon terms.
"and pterosaurs.[34]" Why not give examples, as you do for other groups? Especially considering there is indication some pterosaurs fed on crustaceans.
Examples now listed Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What formation is P. minor from?
Honesty unsure, I haven't found a source going more specific than "Cenomanian Lebanon". Olmagon (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the original citation if I want to have a look? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number 9 on the reference list (same one I mentioned a little higher up that I wasn't able to access). Olmagon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the source is now found[8], I think we can find any such missing info, though it's of course in German. But it seems at least that the specimen is from Hakel Lagerstätte, which should be mentioned. If we want to tease out more information for FAC, Jens Lallensack can maybe help with the German. The citation also needs proper formatting, now it looks incomplete, and link to the Commons PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for German questions, I am available of course. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it can be confirmed it's from Hakel and that Fraas said something like that it's not just a juvenile P. hakelensis? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what they fed on?
I have not found any literature on stenochirid diets so either it is evading me or it doesn't exist (and I wouldn't be surprised if the latter is true). Olmagon (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sexual dimorphism is known in Pseudastacus, with the pincers of the females being more elongated than those of the males. There is evidence of possible gregarious behavior in the form of multiple individuals preserved alongside each other, possibly killed in a mass mortality event." Probably good to state species for each of these cases. We can't be sure each lifestyle applies to all species, I'd assume?
Exact species now mentioned Olmagon (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not exceeding 6 cm (2.4 in)" Isn't it less convoluted to just say "up to 6 cm"?
I'm not sure if there is a guideline for this but the rest of the Description section has been using present tense instead of past so I'm keeping it for now.
Probably ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the intro could probably be merged with the last paragraph, short articles usually don't need three paragraph intros.
There seems to be inconsistencies in the citation formatting, which is taken very seriously at FAC, if you want to take it there. For example, sometimes first names are spelled in full, other times abreviated, and sometimes onlyyears are given, other times exact date.
I have been trying to get the dates as precise as I could find, which was easier to do in more recent papers than older ones which often only had the year. If this will be a problem at FAC though I suppose I can have them all changed to display only the year. Olmagon (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just only give year then, yeah. What I usually do. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now only show year. Olmagon (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation in citation titles should also be made consistent and changed so that only book titles are capitalised, but journal article titles not. Again, mainly an issue for FAC.
Books now have capitalized titles while journals do not. Olmagon (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two last images could probably be right aligned so they don't clash with section titles.
Those two now align right. Olmagon (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this certainly looks good enough for GA now, and much closer to FA, so I'll promote it. Personally I would also take my first FAC to WP:PR or WP:PaleoPR first, but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pseudastacus_mucronatus.jpg){kind=link}