Talk:Hughmilleria/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect, I appreciate the review. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

First reading

 * I will leave the lead section for the time being and come back to it later.
 * In the description section, you start in the present tense and then move on to the past tense and back to the present. You really need to stick to one or the other.
 * Text changed.


 * The description section launches straight into the similarities and dissimilarities of the Hughmilleriads with the more derived eurypterids and Eurypterus, but it could do with a few opening sentences stating what its basic body plan is.
 * Done.


 * "But in spite of its similarities with Eurypterus, the marginal compound eyes, his relatively large chelae" - should be "its relatively large chelae".
 * Done.


 * " its subquadrate prosoma (head), his medium-sized chelicerae," - again, "his" is inappropriate.
 * Done.


 * Where possible, state who people like "Clifton J. Sarle" are, and where places like the "Pittsford Shale Member" are, wikilinking them where you can.
 * Done.


 * " En 1961" - presumably you mean "In".
 * Yes, it was a mistake.


 * There is some repetition between the first paragraph of the "Classification" section and the preceding section.
 * I rewrote the text a bit so they do not look so much alike.


 * " Ludlovian epoch" - Is this the same as the Ludlow epoch?
 * Yes, I changed the text to avoid confusion.


 * Wikilink or gloss epimera, opercular, xiphosuran, ostracod, lithology, biota, and anything else a bit obscure.
 * Done.
 * Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking back now at the lead section:


 * The lead section is supposed to summarise the main body of text so there should be no need for citations in the lead section.
 * Citations removed.


 * "With the biggest specimen measuring 20 centimetres (7.9 inches) in length, Hughmilleria is considered a small genus of eurypterid." - Two things here, 20cm is obviously an approximation, a rounded number, so 7.9 inches is too accurate. Also, a small genus means a genus with few members rather than a genus of small eurypterids.
 * Text changed.


 * When you have dealt with the points I raise above, I propose to do a little light copyediting to improve the prose, rather than listing the various things I noticed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I inform that within a few hours (right now I can not) I will remove the species section and redistribute the information from the section in other sections, as in other eurypterid articles. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I already did it, can continue with the review. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are in the public domain.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! This review has given me much more confidence about myself and my articles. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)