Wikipedia:Peer review/Megalograptus/archive1

Megalograptus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to FA status. The article passed GA review today, so I'm hoping to get a second opinion on the prose (if everything is clear) etc.

Thanks, Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

49 to 78 centimeters, 150 centimeters, 1.7 meters – suggest to stick with one unit to make these numbers comparable.

Yeah, sticking with centimeters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and are highly dubious – need to formulate more neutrally I think, "no longer accepted" maybe? Also refer to the author for this statement if it is the opinion of only a single paper.

I've removed "highly" and attributed it to the paper it's from, which simply uses "dubious". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megalograptus was very unique – "very unique" is questionable wording in serious writing.

Changed to "morphologically unique". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate is erroneous – repetitive, you already say they are dubious.

Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yet unpublished Canadian species – "unpublished" or "undescribed"? If the latter, also link to that article.

Undescribed considering the fossils themselves have been described. Changed wording and linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

carapace (head plate) – if you explain this term, you might also want to explain "tergite" earlier on.

Yeah, added explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

subquadrate (vaguely quadratic) – I think there is nothing to gain here with providing two terms. Why not simply "approximately quadratic"?

Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about 3.5 times the length of the carapace were, significantly – wrong comma position

Reshuffled the sentence a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

one pair end – ends?

I can't find where this is in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but quickly darkened towards their distal (point furthest from the body) ends. – I don'T think you need "distal" at all, "towards their ends" should be reasonably clear.

Yeah, okay. Removed "distal (point furthest from the body)". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

postabdominal – neither linked or explained; maybe reword to avoid?

Explained - don't know what this would be reworded to since it's a specific technical term. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his original 1874 description of the genus and its type species, M. welchi, is not considered relevant in modern research. – I would say it is certainly relevant, since it is the first description. Maybe just remove this sentence.

This wording was used in the source; the intention here is not to deem the description completely irrelevant, but rather that Miller's morphological descriptions aren't relevant because he discusses the fossil as if they were graptolites. That said, I've just removed the sentence since it would be a hassle to rephrase it well enough. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Mason Clarke's great 1912 monograph The Eurypterida of New York – I think "great" is a no-go in an encyclopedia. Maybe "seminal" if you can source it.

The source used "great" but yeah, you're probably right. I've just removed "great". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

monograph – would link this one

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

congeneric --> "of the same genus"

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

morphologically – would also link

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katian[2] age – Most at FAC would prefer to see citations at the end of a sentence, but I also think it will not be a problem. I would, however, recommend to have the citation at least after "age", not after "Katian", since as it is currently it disrupts reading flow even more.

Put it after "age". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Megalograptoidea" – why is this in parenthesis? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in ecause it's not a valid grouping - removed the quotes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]