This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
Seems the eurypterid factory is in full force! Will review this soon. Have you considered trying to nominate your best eurypterid article for FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back on track :) I have considered it but I would like to have a better idea of what FAC means first, getting acquinted with the criteria and looking at some past reviews and such. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, in my experience the main hurdle at FAC compared to GAN is much greater attention to citation consistency and writing. But I think your articles are pretty close. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the image under Paleobiology should be swapped with the one in the infobox, as it shows the animal better/is more complete.
Maybe, I felt that it fit better in Paleobiology as it showed the tail spike (which is discussed there), most often the infobox images are of the eurypterid from the top. The paleobiology image does not show the carapace for instance. If you want to I could still change them as the fossil in the image under Paleobiology is more complete as you say. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to note if any of the depicted fossils are type specimens.
The pictured specimen of E. obesus appears to be the type specimen, other fossils do not appear to be. Noted that the illustration was of the E. obesus type specimen.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be good to note when old reconstructions are from.
"referring E. scorpionis to Eurypterus" and "Eusarcus was sufficiently similar to the related Carcinosoma to be designated as synonymous". Seems some of these combination synonyms could be listed in the infobox then?
Technically, alternative combinations are synonyms too, so they should be listed as such. If the list grows too long, you can just collapse it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"declared that the differences between Eusarcus and all related forms of eurypterids were so great" and "concluded that Eusarcus was sufficiently similar to the related Carcinosoma to be designated as synonymous" seem somewhat contradictory?
Yes but this is what I got out of the source. Mainly based on the sentences "it is entirely evident from our present knowledge that the group, typically represented by Eusarcus scorpionis, is generically distinct from all its allies" and "There are only minor differences between the Buffalo and Kokomo specimens; the latter are undoubtedly congeneric and the term Carcinosoma has to yield to Eusarcus". Seems a bit contradictory, yes.
" bombing runs of the National Museum of Prague" On?
"They referred the Scottish Wenlock-age Eurypterus species E. obesus to the genus, alongside the Pridoli-Lochkovian-age Czech species E. acrocephalus" Here you should probably state by who and when they were named, and their original generic affiliations should be in the taxobox.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Original generic affiliations are in the taxobox now, will look into the when and who.
You only list the specimen number of one holotype, what about the two others?
Can't find the specimen number for E. obesus but it states that the specimen is housed at the British Museum (though this is in 1868 so it might have changed), can't find anything on E. scorpionis.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mix past and present tenses a lot when describing features, should preferably be consistent.
I am not sure what was wrong with the name Eusarcana. At the time it was supposedly seen as redundant, but since it is now recognised, what does "The naming of Eusarcana was one of many contributions to nomenclature by Strand seen as unhelpful today" refer to?
The paper words it as "Eusarcana remains a further example of Embrik Strand’s less than helpful contributions to zoological nomenclature". I assume the name was just considered completely unnecessary.Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"begrudgingly noted" What does the source say? Do they state themselves that it was "begrudgingly"? Otherwise it seems hyperbolic.
The overall tone is remarkably begrudging (a lot of unnecessary information on other "mistakes" by Strand, a lot of usage of "unfortunately" etc.) but I'll remove it as there is nothing that outright puts it as "begrudgingly". Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eurypterids and preoccupied name should be linked at first occurrence outside the intro.
"Furthermore, the walking legs of Eusarcana are more powerful than those of Eurypterus in general, with them decreasing in strength the further back they are, indicating that there was an emphasis on lifting the front of the carapace, in Eurypterus the legs are the longest the further back they are, which indicates that it would have had an emphasis on keeping the head down." Extremely long sentence.
The once we have on Commons are virtually all E. scorpionis, with two images with the same specimen of E. obesus. Nothing on E. acrocephalus so far but it might be possible to track down images of it that are in the public domain but not yet uploaded here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's another one in the bag then, will now pass. Ref 12 seems to be weirdly formatted, might want to give it a standard template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
