Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaekelopterus/archive1

Jaekelopterus

 * Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The greatest of the ancient sea scorpions, and among the most famous, Jaekelopterus was an active apex predator that measured a massive 2.6 meters in length. This is my first FA nomination, the article has been through a GA review, a peer review and has been copy edited. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I had my say at the peer review. This FAC nomination is pretty significant also in being the first of a sea sciorpion/eurypterid, a group which has otherwise been long neglected on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One comment, though, it would be good to have a source for the size estimates used for the size comparison image in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourced the size estimates :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And another question I missed, who does the name "howelli" honour? FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That info is likely in the original paper (Kjellesvig-Waering & Størmer, 1952), which I have been unable to access thus far. It very probably honours invertebrate paleontologist Benjamin Howell (1891–1976)(1,2), I'll see if I can access the original paper somehow or find the etymological information elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you asked for the paper at WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't know this existed, I've put up a request! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very effective, I've gotten some really obscure papers there, they even do scans of papers that are not online. Probably good to know the details of the original description in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah yeah, that was pretty fast. I was right about Benjamin Howell and I've added it as well as added what exactly the original J. howelli remains contained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Jaekelopterus_pretelson.png needs a US PD tag and an author date of death
 * File:Eurypterus_cropped.png needs a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All done; I changed Eurypterus_cropped.png to another image (that is sourced). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Seems to have quite a number of prose issues:
 * based on observed differences in the genital appendage. Though this feature has since proved to be a misidentification – first "differences" in plural, than "this feature" in singular, doesn't fit together.
 * Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If the ratio of body length to chelicera length match – matches
 * Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * posteriormost – needs link, or simply replace with hindmost.
 * Chenged to hindmost. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This group of highly derived ("advanced") eurypterids differs from other groups by a number of features, especially in the chelicerae and the telson. – Which group, do you mean the genus Jackelopterus?
 * Specified so that it is clear that it is the Pterygotidae family that is being referred to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The chelicerae of the Pterygotidae are enlargened and robust, clearly adapted for active prey capture, with chelae (pincers) more similar to the claws – do you have four words here for the same thing (chelicerae, chelae, pincers, claws), or what is the difference?
 * "Chelicerae" are the entire limbs, "chelae" are the actual "claws" (but usually take the form of smaller "pincers") in other groups. Perhaps this could be said in a better way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * with well-developed teeth on the claws, than to the chelicerae of other eurypterid groups – I do not understand the use of the word "than"
 * Replaced "than" with "relative". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * clearly distinguish it – needs to be "-ishes"?
 * Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * lacks median distal indentation – too technical, maybe reword with "is not bifurcated at its end" or something more comprehensible?
 * Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * centimeters, unmineralized – here you have American English, in other instances British English; this needs to be unified (based on the original state of the article)
 * I'm not a 100 % certain on the differences between American and British English. I've tried to go for British English now, there probably are things I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * pretelson – can you link/explain?
 * Explained it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * pretelson to be very characteristic of Pterygotus – do we need the very?
 * Not really, removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * differing very little – again, what does a "very" add here?
 * Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Jaekelopteridae" – is it written in brackets in the sources? Such brackets have a specific meaning in taxonomy; if the name is simply out of use, it is not written in brackets.
 * It's not, removed the brackets. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * pterygotidae – should be in upper case
 * Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * suggesting that members of the group were very lightweight in construction – this is still referring to arthropods?
 * Replaced "members of the group" with "pterygotids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * positive allometry – link/explain
 * Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * However, positive allometry has not been demonstrated in eurypterid chelicerae as a whole in any other eurypterid genus – does this mean that isometry has been demonstrated instead, or is it just absence of evidence?
 * Unsure, the source simply states that it has not been demonstrated. I would assume isometry would hold true for the rest in regards of the chelicerae but I don't have a source for that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thus, the size estimates around 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) remain the most accurate estimates on the maximum size of the species yet – From the many opinions on the matter, you decided that a specific one is fact. This is not a neutral point of view; all views should be presented without preference.
 * I'm not sure if two opinions qualify as many but 2.5 is repeated in other papers without much comment. I've changed it so that it is made clear that it being the most accurate estimate is also an opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * making it unknown if the eurypterids had developed true direct development. – this wording implies that direct development was not the original stage for eurypterids (that they just developed it; that it was not present in their ancestors). If this is not inteded, I would reformulate.
 * Reworded a bit, the intention was that it was unknown whether they were true direct developers (e.g. NO morphological changes post-hatching) or not (some smaller changes such as additional segments and such). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * denticles, out of which two were assumed to be juveniles – I would split the long convoluted sentence into two sentences, it would make it much easier to read.
 * Split it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The morphology of the chelicerae are – "chelicerae is"?
 * Oops, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * length–width ratios measured in juveniles and adults were not as extreme as assumed – don't understand this. Do you mean "not as disparate"?
 * Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * but the fossil deposits from which Jaekleopterus fossils have been discovered – I think you can get rid of one "fossil" here.
 * Got rid of the first one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * where J. howelli fossils has been discovered – "have" been discovered.
 * Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * had very high visual acuity – Do we really need the "very"? That would mean "exceptionally high", but how is this warranted?
 * Removed "very". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * including a large specimen with the right eye preserved from the uppermost Siegenian and a small and likely juvenile specimenfrom the uppermost Siegenian – you give a level of detail here that is not provided for other parts of the "palaeobiology". If these specimens are of special importance, I would state why. If not, consider removing it.
 * They are of special importance because of the detailed preservation of their eyes, could be removed if you think it's necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's it for the prose review; if the comments above can be addressed, I think the prose is fine as far as I can see. If time allows I will provide the required source review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
 * Some paper titles are in title mode (capitalisation troughout), should be put in lower case. Also, species names need to be in italics. Example: "Hallipterus excelsior, a Stylonurid (Chelicerata: Eurypterida) from the Late Devonian Catskill Delta Complex, and Its Phylogenetic Position in the Hardieopteridae".
 * Fixed. Words that should be capitalized (taxonomic names, place names etc.) were kept as capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * J. howelli is much smaller than J. rhenaniae, reaching 80 centimetres (2.6 ft) in length.[6] – In citation [6], the link to the supplementary informaiton is not working (I guess this is where to find the cited info?)
 * Yes, in this case the supplementary information was a comprehensive list of eurypterid size estimates. Link should be working now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Even stergites and sternites (the plates that form the surfaces of the abdominal segments) are generally preserved as paper-thin compressions – I don't see where this is covered in reference [1].
 * The second paragraph of the "discussion" section? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you check if you misspelled "tergites"? This is why I didn't found it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like I did. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * making it unknown to which degree the eurypterids had developed true direct development – the source seems to suggest something different: that eurypterids may hatch with their full complement of opisthosomal segments and appendages, thus being true direct developers like arachnids, and not hemianamorphic direct developers as in xiphosurans (from the conclusions section).
 * Wow, looks like I messed that one up. I've replaced the previous sentence here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * likely preyed upon smaller arthropods (including their own kind) and early vertebrates – This, to me, looks like too close a paraphrasing of the source (original: "probably fed on early vertebrates and smaller arthropods, including their own kind"). Suggest to have the word "cannibal" instead of "their own kind".
 * Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All the rest seems totaly fine, all sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Support on prose and sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
A few minor points on the prose: That's my lot for now. Shall look in again.  Tim riley  talk   22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be in AmE, but we have "metres" and "centimetres" throughout, which, perhaps wrongly, I take to be BrE rather than AmE. Quite prepared to be corrected on this point.
 * "enlargened" doesn't seem to me to be AmE, BrE or AnyE.
 * "Størmer erected a new family" – unexpected and rather odd verb.
 * "moulting" – looks like BrE, but perhaps this is an aberrant AmE spelling – I just mention it to be on the safe side.
 * " fossilised" – ditto.
 * "menoeuvrability" – seems definitely dodgy in its spelling, me judice
 * I've fixed "manoeuvrability" and I replaced "erected" at both instances with "created" which should also be correct and less strange. As for the rest, I am unfamiliar with most of the differences between british and american english, it is supposed to be in BrE currently. It would probably be for the best if someone other than me went over it and checked for this seeing as I've tried and failed a few times now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to check the text as BrE, and will do so tomorrow and report back.  Tim riley  talk   23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice of you, many thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, but please check you're happy with my (few) changes. I hope to add a few general comments on the text soon.   Tim riley  talk   21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Support – I thought the article was going to be heavy going for a layman, but in fact it presents its large amount of technical information very readably. One is relieved to find that one will not bump into a Jaekelopterus rhenaniae on a dark night. My only quibble is that you explain what a metastoma is at the second, not the first, mention of the word (and you don't need two links to its article). With the usual caveat that I know nothing at all about the subject (you'd be astonished how often this is the case, or then again perhaps you wouldn't) I am happy to support the promotion of this article, which is a good read, widely and thoroughly referenced, well illustrated and apparently comprehensive.  Tim riley  talk   12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've moved up the "metastoma" explanation and removed the second link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support - I have read a few of these eurypterid articles and they've been pretty good - I think a few would be in striking distance of FA-hood. This one is no different. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was an active, powerful predator with high visual acuity, and it likely represented an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica.  - my initial query was about "represented" and replacing it with "was", but then I thought it was repetitive, maybe "The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was active and powerful with high visual acuity, most likely an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica" or something...
 * Yeah, changed it to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  ....the strata in which Jaekelopterus fossils have been found suggest that it did not dwell in marine environments proper. - I think would flow better if mentioned where it did live rather than did not live.
 * It "not living in" marine environments was to contrast with it being called a "sea" scorpion, but I guess it living in fresh water would work just as well here. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rest looks good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
I gather this would be 's first FA if we're successful here -- if that's correct, a belated welcome to FAC from the coords! One of the hoops we ask newbies to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, so unless I've missed something above, we'll need a reviewer to perform that before we look at promotion. A request can be added to the top of WT:FAC, or one of the reviewers above might like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did check for that in my source review above; I looked at a good portion of the sources used. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, tks Jens. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)