Talk:Pruemopterus

Pruemopterus 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.

Pruemopterus is part of the Adelophthalmidae 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
Date	Process	Result
January 28, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 18:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you for picking up this review. Here is why I've nominated this article [1]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Caption looks good
One image, appropriate and properly attributed. Reverse image search found nothing.
I also dug up File:Pruemopterus holotype rotated.png which adds nothing and File:Pruemopterus sketch.png which isn't GA material

Copy-Vios

Nothing flagged by earwig
From what little I can compare in the abstracts, there doesn't appear to be anything amiss
I'll have to WP:AGF due to the limited sourcing.

Sourcing

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.

I have access to the two cited sources and to the other two mentioning Pruemopterus, I can email them to you if you want. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add this link to the second source.

Done. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations since I've never encountered a single source reliant GA before. I'm leaning towards allowing it, but I'll seeking some advice since it's a novel set of circumstances. One source that meets both WP:NOTE and criteria 3b. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sourcing

paleobiod] has a few minor pieces of information.

Added what I regarded important from paleobiodb.org. There's three sources now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3] here is a passing mention that appears to retread what's already here.

Misc

Page is stable

Prose

specify 'genus' to 'monotypic genus'

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.

type and only species link type species

Done.

deposits of Early Devonian age deposits of what?

Specified that they're geological deposits and linked to Deposition (geology)

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]

I disagreed with a few, here are my justifications [4] [5]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:25, 26 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!!

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.