Talk:Dvulikiaspis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I will make straightforward changes as I go and jot queries below. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 *  Its prosoma (head) was subquadrate (almost quadrate).....err, this doesn't help a lay reader..."almost square"?
 * Changed.
 *  There was a small consecutive increase in length until....  - I think "There was a small progressive increase in length until ..." is more natural here
 * Changed.
 * In paleoecology, is there anything at all that can be added to possible environment from the strata or associated species?
 * I don't think so. That formation seems to have received very little attention.
 * that's a shame...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I am thinking about the intro -now I fancy myself as knowing a bit about prehistoric critters and I'd never heard of Chasmataspidida until reading this article. I think the intro can be more engaging and accessible if it was written something like:


 * "Dvulikiaspis is a genus of extinct aquatic arthropod that flourished during the Early Devonian period (Lochkovian epoch). Initially described as a new species of the eurypterid Stylonurus in 1959, not until 2014 that it was recognised as belonging to a different order—the chasmataspidida - this gives the novice reader some context.
 * Chasmataspidida is a pretty obscure clade, I neither did know about it before Wikipedia, but I am attracted to its similarity with Eurypterida and I find it interesting. I always follow a type of format for all my articles, and the leads usually have a specific order (first what it is, what it means and where the genus is located, then its description and finally history, classification, etc.). This is explained anyway in the third paragraph of the lead.
 * ok fair enough. not a deal-breaker anyway and I guess folks can just follow the blue links Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise there is little to complain about. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Super   Ψ   Dro  08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)