Wikipedia:Peer review/Hynerpeton/archive1

Hynerpeton
As far as stegocephalians (four-limbed vertebrates, "tetrapods" in the traditional sense) are concerned, Hynerpeton is only surpassed in popularity by the famous big names such as Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega. Hynerpeton is probably well known to general paleontology fans due to its inclusion in Walking with Monsters. However, its portrayal in the show made several dubious inferences, and for a long time its Wikipedia page suffered from the influence of WWM fans. I hope that my recent edits have cleaned up the article and transformed it into an informative, evidence-based, yet accessibly written overview of the genus. There isn't too much known apart from shoulder bones, so I don't know if the article is worthy of GA or anything close, but I hope that it is of sound quality. Thank you in advance.

Signed, Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at some point (I am currently involved with a few too many reviews I haven't finished, so might take a while), but to answer your question in regard to possible GAN; as long as the article covers the subject comprehensively, it doesn't matter how much material that is known (as FAs like Dromaeosauroides and Oxalaia should demonstrate). It would probably be good to give a citation for what the diagram image is based on in the file page (I assume it is drawn after some publication?). FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "would come to be known as the holotype specimen" Or rather it would become the holotype? The current wording is very vague.
 * Changed the wording. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "This initial find was a robust left shoulder bone" What is a shoulder bone (there are several bones in the shoulder)? A scapula? Could be specified.
 * The preserved bone is the endochondral shoulder girdle, which in crownward vertebrates separates into the cleithrum, scapula, and coracoid. I've now specified it in the introduction, although "endochondral shoulder girdle" is a bit of an unwieldy phrase, so early into the description I've tried to establish that it would henceforth be referred to as "the shoulder bone". Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, any explanation given in the intro should also be given in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "more stegocephalian" Link. Also, I wonder if US states should get links.
 * I already linked to stegocephalian in the intro, but I can do it elsewhere since it's not a very well-known term. I also already linked to Pennsylvania in the intro, though it's less obscure so I didn't feel like a link was necessary elsewhere. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As with explanations, everything linked ion the intro should also be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are somewhat inconsistent in whether you use scientific names or common names for bones. You should pick one throughout, and then use the other in parenthesis.
 * Glenoid fossa/shoulder socket seems to be the worst offender, so I've switched to glenoid fossa. Are there any other examples? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some of the new material" Is "new" appropriate here?
 * Not really, I've changed the wording. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Red Hill "tetrapod" fossils" Link, and why quotation marks?
 * Tetrapod is a contentious term which many paleontologists only use to refer to the crown-group. Since none of the Red Hill fossils are crown-tetrapods, I prefer to call them four-limbed vertebrates, only using "tetrapods" with quotations if "four-limbed vertebrates" is too long to flow well. And do you want me to link Red Hill? Wikipedia's Red Hill article refers to a town unrelated to the fossil site. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I meant link tetrapod. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "since there were other unique animals close to this point" Like which?
 * They were discussed in the previous paragraph, but I can make my reference more explicit. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "left cleithrum" I don't even know what this is, parenthesis explanation?
 * Linked in "left cleithrum", and elaborated on the definition early in the description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "For example, Jenny Clack" Present with occupation as you do with other palaeontologists.
 * My bad, it wasn't intentional. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the restoration under description? There it could also be right aligned, so that it faces the text.
 * Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a must at all, but if you want to depict Ventastega in the cladogram, it could be cut out of this image:
 * I can probably do that, I have time today. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hynerpeton individuals were presumably similar to" Seems unnecessarily wordy, why not just "Hynerpeton was presumably similar to"?
 * There is a debate over whether scientific names should be referred to in the plural or singular. "Hynerpeton bassetti" is a group of organisms, like Panthera leo or Homo sapiens. I generally try to avoid referring to Hynerpeton in the singular if possible. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted above, a lot of things linked in the intro should also be linked at first occurrence in the article body.
 * "which did not appear in the fossil record until the Carboniferous." Since the fossil record exists, I wonder if this should be present tense? If you had just said "appeared until the carboniferous", past tense would make more sense, of course.
 * True. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "of .7 meters" Is a zero missing?
 * Apparently, I don't always consider one necessary but if it helps, then it's worth adding. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "and may have been an origin point for retractor muscles." I'm not sure if this kind of external links are "allowed". Perhaps you can find an equivalent on Wiktionary, or explain in parenthesis? More "ivyroses" links with the same issue later. Also under paleoecology, you should cite these pages conventionally rather than linking terms to them.
 * The ivyroses links have been changed to wikitionary links. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The etymologies should be given in the article body as well (the intro should not have unique info).
 * Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much info on its lifestyle (which makes sense, given the scant remains). Any idea what it would have fed on and so on?
 * There is no evidence for dietary habits considering that no skull bones are currently referred to the genus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be unnecessary extra space at the end of the description and paleoecology sections.
 * Not sure why that was there, I've gotten rid of it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "A more accurate term would be "stem-tetrapod" or "stegocephalian", indicating that it was part of the lineage of animals that would lead to true tetrapods such as modern amphibians (Lissamphibia), reptiles, mammals, and birds." This is excessive detail for the intro, which is supposed to summarise the article, and should be placed in the article body.
 * Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hynerpeton is also known for being the first Devonian four-limbed vertebrate discovered in the United States, as well as possibly being one of the first to have lost internal (fish-like) gills." None of this is specifically stated in the article body.
 * Now it is. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would seem the intro needs more descriptive and palaeoecological info to fully summarise the article.
 * I've made an attempt to expand it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes look good, but there are still the odd links under palaeoecology which should be converted into citations.
 * If you are referring to the links to Devonian Times, that was intentional. Devonian Times has a much more informative and comprehensive review of Red Hill fauna and flora compared to Wikipedia. So I prefer linking to that site, which is quite well-sourced as well. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well again, external links should not be used like that in the article body, per External links, so you'll have to link them as citations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the page you just linked, "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Devonian Times is further research that is accurate and on-topic, and it also incorporates copyrighted pictures which could not be used in a wikipedia article. In addition, 9 out of the 15 taxa for which I provided external links don't even have Wikipedia articles. And of the 6 which do have articles, only Phyllolepis and Groenlandaspis have more info than their Devonian Times equivalent. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That refers to the external links section, not the article body. If you go further down, the guideline specifically says "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." Rare exceptions is given as "Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like external media, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." So the exceptions are very restricted. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, Groenlandaspis, Phyllolepis, and Hyneria are now wikilinks. But should the 9 taxa without pages just go to red links? And what about Barinophyton, Ctenacanthus, and Gyracanthus, which have very short articles with scarce information. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the safest arrangement if you are going for GAN. As for redlinks, all genera warrant articles, so displaying red links will hopefully encourage people to create the articles. They won't create new articles (or improve inadequate ones) if they aren't visible after all. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point that I had not considered before. Thank you, I have made the edits. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You probably don't have to mention the name of an artist in image captions unless they have a Wikipedia article, but no big deal.
 * Funny enough, Nobu Tamura does have a Wikipedia article. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, strange, the page doesn't seem to attempt to establish notability... FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would consider him notable due to his contributions to Wikipedia. He's a quantity over quality sort of artist, but the fact that he has an image for basically every sort of taxon imaginable makes him an important asset. He's also listed as an artist in paleoart, and no one has objected to that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a completely different discussion, but as I noted at the paleoart page, there are WP:notability guidelines to follow, and Wikipedia should not cite itself. But he has illustrated a few books, so that could maybe help. Again, no big deal here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that his art is open access means that he has a wide influence outside of Wikipedia. I've often seen his art used in museums, or as silhouettes in academic papers. He also illustrated the press release for the unnamed whale-sized ichthyosaur that was described last year. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, going off on a tangent here, but that owes a lot to the free licences and the fact that Wikipedia gets the top search hits for many terms. I have seen some of my own Wikipedia artwork used in museums, magazines, and even scientific papers, but I realise it is mainly because of its availability rather than anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The article looks good to me, perhaps you want to keep the peer review open to get more views. Or you can of course send it straight to GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it open for now, but if no one else shows up I'll probably go to GA. What class do you think it is at right now? It currently shows up as "Start" on the talk page. Thank you for the review, I appreciate your help. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)