# Talk:Arthropleura

Can someone clarify the usage of A. Armata, seemingly in place of Arthropleura, in various places throughout this article? There is no introduction for this term A. Armata, nor does it show up in the "synonyms" of Arthopleura in the sidebox.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FCA0:7E25:34B9:28AD:A6D9:9C83 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) 

Consistency: Article early on describes animal as probably carnivorous, but later as definitely herbivorous.
Sandcastlesofstone 09:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the use of the word "stalagmite" to the word "pneumatophore", a type of aerial root used by mangroves, often found in swampy environments, as evident in the show.

I think Arthropleura was a herbivorous animal.The biggest weight is almost ever, with herbivorous or onivorous animal.Agre22 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

No way this is fair use. We're not talking about the film 64.131.243.173 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying for years to find out how wide the animal and/or the tracks of this creature are.  Is there anyone who can add this data to the article?  --Suttkus (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Without a width the length measurement is largely meaningless. Was it 1 cm wide or 1 foot wide? Fig (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I found this: Imprints are 5-7 cm wide and up to 1.5 to 2 cm deep (Fig. 4C-E). The external width of the trackway is 32- 38 cm. Based on the body width/length ratio of 3.6 to 4.4 (Kraus, 1993; Schneider and Werneburg, 1998), an Arthropleura of 1.37 to 1.67 m body length was the trail maker [[1]] Triangulum (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be an obscure reference to Arthropleura on page 335 of Halo cryptum MMFA (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Nearby, something like a small tank passed by me on many pumping legs, a gigantic armor-plated arthropod almost three meters long. It ignored me, for I was not the rotting vegetation it favored as a meal." - Page 335 of Halo: Cryptum MMFA (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Unless it actually said it was Arthropleura, and or explains how this mention of Arthropleura is important to the plot of Halo, please don't use the "In Popular Culture" section as a laundry list of "spot the monster"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't edit it, I was just making a suggestion MMFA (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"or explains how this mention of Arthropleura is important to the plot of Halo," You've got this backward--it needs to explain how the plot of Halo is relevant to the animal Arthropleura or has effected public perception of that animal. Otherwise it belongs only on the Halo page at best. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the picture because it contradicts the information in the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not an art gallery. The artist's impression is not verified, cited, or anything. So what if that is an unknown artist's impression of the animal?
Encyclopedic pictures enhance articles. Random drawings are for refrigerators. --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How does it contradict the article? The article states it was up to 2.3 meters, which it looks to be in the image (assuming the average person is less than 2 meters tall). Note that the shaded figures at the bottom are the size comparison. clpo13(talk) 18:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
When you glance at the picture it looks like it is comparing a human shadow to the big colored picture; which makes it appear that the organism is 10 metres long. I just got a handful of "copied from Wikipedia without reading" assignments turned in that describe this 10 metre long creature based on this badly done drawing. When an image has two different scales in it, as this image does, it should clearly indicate that. The artist's impression of the creature could stand alone, but once the artist added a completely different drawing that is about scale to the same image, the artist should have clearly indicated the scale alongside the bigger image.
Although at least you're not editing a million pages and calling me a vandal. --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, the image says nothing about the size of the human, so are we looking at a 1 meter tall human and an arthropod about that same length, or a 2.3 metre one next to an American basketball player? How about an average male human, somewhere in the 1.75 metre range, and an average arthropod, or the maximum length arthropod, rather than some random and unknown size? The artist is not conveying encyclopedic information, they just drew a picture and uploaded it to Wikipedia without thinking about it or making it useful. Again, we're not an art gallery, we're an encyclopedia.  --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. I'll see if maybe I can add an inset box around the size comparison to differentiate it from the color picture. clpo13(talk) 19:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the image for now since, as you said, it's sorely lacking in useful information. Hopefully I can put together a more informative and less confusing image, like File:Vraptor-scale.png at Velociraptor. clpo13(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you think of the newer version I uploaded? [2] Triangulum (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The other day I uploaded a new reconstruction of Arthropleura, but could not figure out where to put it on the article. I found most of the article to be short, somewhat cluttered, and the text was often outdated or contradicted itself. I have completely overhauled the article to address these issues. I hope this is not a problem. I probably missed a few citations, and my formatting might not be the best, so it would be great if others could help continue to improve it. Sorry if this causes any inconvenience, and do let me know if its a problem. Prehistorica CM (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I modified some description of the mouthparts (the maxilla and forcipule/maxilliped are completely different appendage), but overall its a helpful overhaul, especially the historical section. Junnn11 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthropleura/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Prehistorica CM (talk · contribs) 03:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review
    — ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 21:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is generally good, albeit a little rough around the edges. I fixed some pretty blatant grammar/wording errors, but there are other minor things that could be done to improve the prose. For GA status, its good enough. If this was nominated for FA it might need some work.
There are two critical issues that need to be fixed. I cannot pass this article without them:
1. Sentence 3, paragraph 4 of the morphology section is not backed up by the citation.

This should be fixed now - the reference was at the end of the paragraph, but I added an extra link. Prehistorica CM (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
looks good ZKevinTheCat (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Palaeobiology of the Arthropleuridea (Wilson 1999) is not linked and I cannot find a link to the paper anywhere. If you could provide that link, please put it in the article.

I was given a .pdf copy by an acquaintance, and is cited as a reference by the recent Montceau fossil paper. I tried looking for an online copy, and discovered that while it is normally available through various university library systems (ProQuest), the actual full text is currently unavailable (alongside various other texts) due to a cyber attack. This puts me in an odd position... Will I be required to remove all references to the thesis? Prehistorica CM (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Removing the references to the thesis would be worse. If the full text does become available, then people can look into it later. Without the citation at all multiple claims in the article would be unsourced. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Other suggestions
There are also some other things that could improve the article that you could implement that aren't critical for GA but would help nonetheless, and I would strongly recommend doing these.
1. At the beginning of the article, you could add a pronunciation guide and the actual root words from which the genus name is derived, instead of just stating what the name means. For examples of different ways of going about this, see Drosophila or Fir. I would recommend putting all of that info in parenthesis though, instead of leaving some stuff out like in the Drosophila article.
2. I would recommend rewriting the lead to be more inclusive. There is not a ton of detail, and is a little messy. it is not agregious, which is why I think it's good enough for GA, but it is far from perfect. There are guides on how to write lead sections which can help. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to pass this article. There are no unsourced statements and the article is about as comprehensive it can be at the moment. The writing is the biggest issue with this article, but I think it is good enough for GA. The lead is the biggest issue at the current moment, but its not enough to bring the whole article down for me.
In other words, it serves its purpose. A casual reader can come away from reading it having a fair amount of knowledge on the subject, and the overall structure is well put together. 
Congrats to Prehistorica_CM for their first GA. I hope they can make more in the future. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)