Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pseudastacus/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2024 [1].

Pseudastacus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fossil crustacean which lived during the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous periods. Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • though the placement of some species remain – "remains"
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous – here and elsewhere: "Late" and "Early" has to be upper case (except for stages, which are lower case).
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carapace is usually uneven, with either small tubercles or pits across the surface. – Could be reformulated with "surface" in the first part of the sentence, otherwise it is not immediately clear what "uneven" refers to when reading.
"Surface" is now in the front half of the sentence. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "invalid"
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "et al." to "and colleagues" to make it easier for non-experts to understand
Changed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1: pages are missing. Also, could you link to the exact page where the genus is named in the BHL?
Pages added and linked directly. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year later, Münster described several fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone he believed to represent isopods, and erected the genus Alvis to contain the single species A. octopus, naming it after the dwarf Alvíss from Norse mythology. – Why is this relevant here? What is the point?
Alvis is a junior synonym of Pseudastacus, just added in the part where it gets synonymized (took me way too long to find out what publication lumped the two). Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Pseudastacus means "false Astacus" – from which language? If possible, provide the original word from which it is derived ("pseudo").
Seems to be a Greek word, added that now. Olmagon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that P. muensteri is a junior synonym of P. pustulosus – you could directly state here that they suggested they were female specimens of P. pustulosus, which would me more reader-friendly.
Now directly written. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • synonyms of Pseudastacus – (in the taxonbox): Why is "synonyms" in lower case, but the heading of the section in upper case?
All now start with capital letters. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Oppel in the taxonbox?
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossils of Pseudastacus had been described prior to the naming of this genus, under other names which are currently invalid. – seems to be without a source?
The taxonomic history is explained within the section, by reading the years you will realize Bolina and Alvis (now invalid) were named prior to Pseudastacus. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The generic name references the nymph Bolina from Greek mythology. – Maybe add that she "threw herself into the sea" to give a hint for why the genus was named after her? (this hint is provided in the first description).
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • some have since been moved into different genera after they were discovered not to be closely related to the type species. – should this be "after it was discovered that they were not closely related to"?
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2020, Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo published a study including a summary of recognized stenochirid species, which covered the reclassification of former Pseudastacus species and left the following as members of the genus – This could be more concise, e.g. "A 2020 revision by Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo retained five species within the genus Pseudastacus" or similar.
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved to Pseudastacus in 1861. – moved or renamed?
I suppose "renamed" works better. Olmagon (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is a fragment of the pincer. The chela is very large, – if "chela" is just a synonym of "pincer", then please stick to one term. Always use the same term for the same thing, otherwise the reader assumes that you mean something different.
Changed to pincer.Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus is a small crustacean, with the carapace of P. lemovices reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) excluding the rostrum, and a height of 6.5 mm (0.26 in).[6] The known specimens of P. pustulosus range from 4–6 cm (1.6–2.4 in) in total length. – Any reason why you cover lemovices before covering the type species?
Reordered to have the type species first. Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • lateral – you could avoid this term by writing "on the sides".
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • arch-shaped incision. – translate for the general reader
Changed "incision" to "depression". Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and long setae on the margins. – explain setae (just "bristles"?)
Now explained. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a wide variety of families by many different authors – I think it is better to drop the "wide" and "many" here.
Removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert Oppel noticed that Pseudastacus fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone could be distinguished into two morphs – "divided" instead of "distinguished"?
Replaced with "divided" now. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a separate species which in 1862 he named P. muensteri. – suggest moving "in 1862" to the end of the sentence.
Moved. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually representing female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species. – I think this doesn't fit grammatically with the first part of the sentence.
Rewrote this part a bit. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly indicating the species exhibited gregarious behaviour, – needs a "that"
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use a mixture of British and American English spellings (e.g., both "palaeo" and "paleo"). This should be uniform.
The 'a's are now removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus pustulosus, the type species of the genus, is also known from the most specimens. – Why "also"? Is there another one that is known from "the most specimens"?
I think I originally meant that it is both the type species and most abundant, but yeah it seems better without the also. Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • interbedded – explain or avoid the term
Changed to "embedded between each other". Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like "alternating mudstone and clay layers" is better. Also, aren't mudstones simply the diagenetic form of clays? (i.e., clays turn to mudstones upon compaction). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used "alternating" instead now. Geology isn't really my strong suit but the first sentence of the mudstone page seems to support that they come from clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say precisely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the abstract: This is reflected through the marine interbedded calcareous mudstones and clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand this; usually you have interbedding of mudstones and sandstones, but mudstones and clays do not make sense to me; how would they have been formed? I just see that the source is a Bachelor thesis. These are generally not considered to be high-quality reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources, unless they can be demonstrated to have had significant scholarly influence, but I can't find a single paper that cites it. I fear this source has to be removed/replaced. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a whole different source now and rewrote that bit to match the new source. Olmagon (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

grungaloo

[edit]

Marking my spot, will be back later. grungaloo (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "noted that the name Bolina was preoccupied" - would change to "was already assigned to" or something similar
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Pseudastacus combines the Greek word ψεύδος (pseudos, meaning "false") " - Greek spelling is probably not needed, having "pseudo" is good enough I think
I don't think it's too much a problem to have it there, the Greek spelling is also shown in some other paleontology featured articles like Tyrannosaurus and Megalosaurus. If you still insist though I suppose it could go. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His analysis also found that the specimen named as Alvis octopus by Münster is not an isopod" - is to was? Keeps the tense consistent throughout this section
Changed now. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lived in Lebanon during the Cenomanian stage." - switch to "found in Lebanon" so it's consitent with the other listings
Switched. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individuals with smoother carapaces are also documented, though this may be due to abrasion" - was this abrasion caused during its life or during fossilisation?
Source doesn't say unfortunately, though I guess it might be difficult to tell. Olmagon (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back later with more. (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grungaloo, just checking to see if there will be more? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a final read-through, nothing else stands out to me. Support grungaloo (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Man

[edit]

Leaving this here just to mark my spot. Will be back with comments soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "of which one was from the Redenbacher collection of the Berlin Natural History Museum" - I would change the first words around to "one of which"
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but have now been moved to different genera." - Change now to since?
Done. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and actually represent female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species." - I still don't think this fits with the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to something like "representing female specimens of this species."
Tried to keep "sexually dimorphic" in the sentence since I was told by one of the other reviewers to link it in the section at least once but the sentence has now been changed a bit. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This sediment in this locality" - Change this sediment to the sediment
Done Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mantis shrimps" - Should this not be mantis shrimp?
Fixed. Olmagon (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that initially was deposited during a period of low sea level" - Change the first part to that was initially
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the changes made, I will Support

Coordinator note

[edit]

The last FAC was archived due to lack of feedback, and I'd hate to see that happen again; Olmagon I would recommend following up with the editors who participated last time to see if they're willing to give input this time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a post about this on the WP:Paleontology talk page. Olmagon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olmagon, don't know why I didn't think of this before at the GAN, but have you considered doing a life restoration? We have that for all other extinct taxon FAs, and since you do restorations yourself, would be fitting? Or one could be requested at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had been using Oppel's 1862 recons which as far as I can tell are still accurate (not too surprising with how complete Solnhofen fossils get) but I suppose I could also make one, perhaps also one of P. lemovices in addition to P. pustulosus. Not sure about the other 3 since 2 of them have no remaining material and one is just a pincer, not to mention their status as members of the genus being questionable. Olmagon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise so many of them were already reconstructions (thought they depicted fossils). Perhaps this could be stated explicitly in the rest of the captions (instead of just "illustration"), I only see it in one? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read this comment I'm starting to question if those are recons or extremely well-preserved fossils. I had just assumed the former all along because they look so life-like, but Solnhofen seems like the type of place to produce fossils like that. Olmagon (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, from what I checked, it didn't seem to be labelled as a reconstruction. But it's a bit hard to check them all, because the Commons descriptions don't link to the correct pages. Could you fix those links, then I and Jens could maybe check their German captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should've fixed the Sources sections of the images now. Olmagon (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can read, they all just seem to be illustrations of particular specimens, with no indication of reconstruction. Perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are interpretative drawings of particular specimens, not life reconstructions. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, Solnhofen preservation really is something. Well I have uploaded a reconstruction of P. lemovices now, waiting for approval on the paleoart review page. Could also restore P. pustulosus now thay those turn out not to be recons. Olmagon (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Some of the file have raw URL links, I think some information about what's in the link would be good lest link rot sets in. Also, File:Pseudastacus pustulosus Oppel.jpg isn't on the linked page. Images need ALT text. Spot-check upon request, and reviewing this version. Not sure that sources with DOIs need a retrieved on. There is some inconsistency in which sources have publishers and which don't (e.g #9). I have been always unsure if Frontiers in Earth Science and Frontiers... things in general are reliable or not, given what it says on Frontiers Media. Don't think that Google Books archives bring anything. Lots of oldish sources but I don't think that's wrong here. #7 needs a bit more information on what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links on the image files should be fixed now, Retrieveds removed from DOIed sources, source 9 has a publisher. Not sure what more in particular you think source 7 needs. Leaving the Frontiers source there for now but if there's a consensus to get rid of it I could probably find another article on Lebanese Cretaceous squamates to put in its place. Olmagon (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have a discussion somewhere about the suitability of Frontiers in general, but that's not here. Do folks want a spotcheck here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck would be great, thanks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Need a source that says Pseudastacus=Bolina. Where is the timing of the Solnhofen limestone stated?
Sources 3 and 5 at least, anything with a systematic paleontology section for the genus lists Bolina as a junior synonym. Olmagon (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 Needs a pagenumber since apparently you can't search this source.
Alvis stuff starts on page 20. Olmagon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 That doesn't say that the name Bolina was already taken.
Sorry this took embarrassingly long but I finally figured out where I first read the name was preoccupied (in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology), apparently I saw it and forgot to properly attribute that source assuming Oppel would write the same thing in German. Anyways adding this source has made all the source numbers afterwards shift by one so I am adjusting the number points below. Olmagon (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 It says "median-sized" and describes additional grooves? I am not sure that list in "Late Jurassic" always reflects species in the Solnhofen environment.
Extra grooves now mentioned, the list should all be Solnhofen since the whole paper was about Solnhofen taxa. I supposed it is median-sized compared to other members of its own family but 6 centimeters is still a small animal. Olmagon (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Can I have a copy of this page?
Here Olmagon (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, where is "oldest known"? Also having some difficulty finding the "chelae" description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion section says something about the pereiopod differences between the species and being oldest is said at the end of Conclusions. Olmagon (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Searching for "mucronatus" doesn't find the information.
Weird thing, I don't think I see it either yet that paper is cited by anything else mentioning P. mucronatus as the publication that described it. However the "claw of a large species" mentioned on page 124 and figured near the end is the type specimen (according to the P. lemovices description paper). Olmagon (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to add source 7 in there as well since that paper does state the things written. Olmagon (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Searching for "minor" doesn't find the information.
The P. minor stuff is right on the linked page. Olmagon (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
I think I need you to send me a wikimail so I can reply with the file attached. Olmagon (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 OK
  • 19 Neither family name appears in the source.
Protastacidae is literally right in the title and the whole paper is about the establishment of that family, with Pseudastacus being assigned to it. Olmagon (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not sure how I missed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 Supports some of the information
  • 22 Not sure what information comes from this source.
Getting placed in Chilenophoberidae. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 28 OK
  • 42 Doesn't mention "minor"
Well it's not about P. minor, it's just a reference for the Lebanese Cretaceous environment. Olmagon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 OK
  • 45 Supports some of the information
  • 48 Supports some of the information

Gotta say, verifying stuff with sources that are 10s or 100s pages long sans pagenumbers is hard, especially when keywords don't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning this into a list using "*" because it is easier to read as a list this way. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, is that a pass on all three? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, several things in the spotcheck are outstanding. Did I send that wikimail? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Olmagon, just checking, is Jo-Jo waiting on a response from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly else is left unless "supports some of the information" needs me to do something about it. Olmagon (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that you have addressed all of Jo-Jo's comment you need to ping them to tell them that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, @Jo-Jo Eumerus is there anything left to fix? Olmagon (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really keep forgetting to finish these reviews. It seems everything checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI

[edit]

Reads well, don't have much to complain about though a life restoration would nice. Will add some suggestions if I spot anything. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those have now been added. Olmagon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are labelled as "own work". In what way are they not OR? Where are they cited to "high-quality reliable sources"? This recent discussion is relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did make mentions of the papers I based their proportions on. I guess I could make a note in the caption about color being hypothetical and all. Olmagon (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: some of the works cited have a publisher location and others don't. In the latter cases, are they not known.
I had been adding locations for the books since that was a parameter which automatically pops up when adding a book as a source and not any other form of reference. Leaving it like that for now unless there's consensus for locations to be added on more sources. Olmagon (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, and is normal practice. But isn't Palaeontologische Mittheilungen aus dem Museum des koenigl. bayer. Staates a book? Published in Stuttgart. And Aus dem Orient: Geologische Beobachtungen am Libanon. II? And Fossilium catalogus: Animalia.
Can't find a location for Aus, added them for the other two. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg Garassino and Schweigert (OCLC 1104150486).
Added ones I could find. Olmagon (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hay et al, OCLC 40266857.
Added. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if at the first mention of each age, era, etc how long ago - which may mean giving its age range - it was, for readers for whom descriptions such as "Sinemurian-aged" do not convey this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added age ranges in the Paleoenvironment section. Olmagon (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the latter one. Olmagon (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pseudastacus/archive2&oldid=1220798937"