Talk:Adelophthalmus

Expansion to FA
I'm sure this article could easily pass to FA if an expansion is made. Adelophthalmus seems to be the second genus of eurypterids that can be most comprehensive (after Eurypterus). But I would certainly need to give at least a brief description of each species first of all. I think that the subsection "Notable subsequent discoveries" should be rewritten since it only contains three paragraphs about species that seem not to have much relevance within the genus beyond two of them being recent, although I do not know much about Adelophthalmus. I think the classification could also be expanded. Ichthyovenator, do you want to make this expansion to promote the first FA of eurypterids? Super  Ψ   Dro  17:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The three species written about under "notable subsequent discoveries" are "extra" notable; A. irinae is the first carboniferous eurypterid from Russia and A. piusii is the first ever eurypterid found in Italy, but there are of course other species that could (and perhaps should) be included here. Because Adelophthalmus contains a staggering 31 species expanding it so that each species is discussed in detail is an almost herculean task. Another thing to note is that whilst Adelophthalmus is very interesting due to its large number of species and long temporal range, there are other eurypterids that are more famous (e.g. get searched for more), notably Megarachne and Jaekelopterus which overshadow all other genera by a lot of pageviews.
 * That being said, Adelophthalmus (and all the other genera we've put under "notable genera" in the eurypterid template for that matter) is a prime candidate for expansion and eventual FA-work. We could make an attempt at expanding Adelophthalmus (it might need some restructuring as well) if you want to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here, I'd also think that a more likely first candidate for FAC would be a genus with a less complicated taxonomic history, and perhaps a little more "famous". I think a simpler, more straightforward article might be easier to use as template for other, perhaps more complicated articles later on, and it would probably also attract more reviewers, as it would be more accessible for non-experts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean that Adelophthalmus could be expanded and in the process be elevated to FA (the first since there is not yet), but if I had to choose one to be the first FA, it would be Jaekelopterus or Pterygotus.


 * By the way, I will soon make a massive request for all the documents that I see relevant to the article, I could pass them to you via email if you are interested. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I believe that the information of the most relevant species (such as those included in the phylogenetic analysis) could be moved to "Notable subsequent discoveries", while the most irrelevant species as possible synonyms would remain in "Evolutionary history". There would also be exceptions, such as A. sievertsi, which being the earliest species, should remain there. Super   Ψ   Dro  07:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Jaekelopterus would probably be the best candidate for the first FA if we were to try on one, most of the information needed is already in the article and it should just need some more polishing and perhaps a little expansion. As for Adelophthalmus I think the structure of this article is a bit of a mess, species descriptions feel like they are all over the place for instance, but I'm not sure how to do that better, definitely a future project though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The GA review was also a bit light, perhaps a peer review would be in order when the time comes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can take a stab at overhauling this one a bit and request a peer review once I'm done polishing the main Eurypterid article up a bit. I know that a section titled "species" is not really standard format (as I was told over at Prognathodon), but might there be an exception made for a genus with 31 species or is there perhaps a better way to organize this? Perhaps a table of species as there is in Dimetrodon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon#Species)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with this amount, it should make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that would make things easier. I suppose we shouldn't follow the old format that was previously used (like here). Super   Ψ   Dro  16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From a purely aesthetic standpoint I think a table would look better than bullet points with prose inbetween them. Not sure the old format follows the manual of style either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09,u 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pteranodon has something (bottom) that could maybe be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that are aware of it, and, but it seems the article could be expanded with this new paper describing a new species and with implications for respiration? Adelophthalmus seems to be making the news now because of it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already planned to create an article for the new adelophthalmid genus described just a few days ago (i just found out today). For now I will leave it to Ichthyovenator as he is the writer of the article, but I can take care of it if he wishes. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, too bad it's not a free journal! FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , : I am unfortunately going to be quite busy in the next few months due to university studies so if the info needs to be added quickly, you can go ahead and add it if you want to. Otherwise I can take care of it when I have the time but I'm not sure when that would be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated everything related to the new species. You might want to take a look at the paper as it appears to have content on the respiratory system of A. pyrrhae that could be included in the article or in the respiration section of Eurypterid, but I think there is nothing essential. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would seem to at least apply to the genus as a whole, no? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read it in detail and it definitely had some important information. Now everything is in the article. A little problem is that I don't know if it is correct to include it in the paleoecology section, perhaps it could be renamed to "Paleoecology and paleobiology" or even separate both sections. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good! In other paleo articles, we'd have separate paleobiology and paleoecology (we began to call them paleoenvironment after a paleontologist did a peer review of a dinosaur article) sections, such as in the current FAC Limusaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, paleoenvironment sounds better than paleoecology to be honest. I'm thinking of doing a separate section on paleobiology but I don't know what could it include other than respiration. Everything else seems proper for paleoecology. Maybe I could use "Diet and predation", as in Limusaurus? Super   Ψ   Dro  08:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you rename it to environment, you restrict it in scope so it would be only about how its surroundings were, what sediments it was found in, and what it lived alongside. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)