# Talk:Antennipatus

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antennipatus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: RenaMoonn (talk · contribs) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It looks generally good, and the suggestions below could also be applied to your other GA nominations to get those issues out of the way there too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

At first glance, there are a lot of unnecessary WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
Personally, I like having some duplinks due to their increased utility (you can click on them in more than one place) in an article. This is especially useful for unfamiliar readers who are still learning about the referenced concepts. However, to compromise a little bit, I think I’ll change from only one link to a topic per paragraph to only one per subsection.
In a long article, with far between the links, it can make sense, but this article is pretty short, so you will see all the duplinks within your screen simultaneously anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeahhhh, not budging on this, especially for mobile users RenaMoonn (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
It's not a big deal at GAN, but if you ever try FAC, the criteria are more rigid. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The History of discovery and naming should also state "a group colloquially known as velvet worms".
Fixed
"Antennipatus specimens MNHN-SOT006706a and SOT006706b" could state which letters refer to each.
Fixed
"Antennipatus was known from the Montceau-les-Mines lagerstätte as far back as 1981." I assume this is before it was described, so it could be stated outright, like "before it was formally named" or such.
Fixed
"and virtually identical to a fossil from Mazon Creek (Helenodora)." Why is the name in parenthesis, was it also not named at the time? Otherwise, I think it should be moved into the sentence.
Fixed this. Helenodora was named in the 1982 study due to being described in 1980.
"and showed how the number of specimens rose from two to several." A bit unclear phrasing, you mean something like "and the known number of specimens rose"? Either way, it seems a bit unnecessary if there are only three specimens in all. Then it makes more sense to just say that, as the other phrasing makes it seem like it rose from two to many more when it only rose by one.
I did this because the paper from 1988 (The Fossils of Montceau-les-Mines) shows an onychophoran fossil that I can’t identify. It has no registry name, and at least to me, doesn’t look similar to any of the formally described fossils
Then it's even less clear to me why we need such a specific number? "and showed how the number of specimens rose from two to several" What does this add? Why not a more general statement? FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Changed it to "showed how the number of specimens rose". Hopefully this fixes the issue RenaMoonn (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Better, I think it could be rephrased as "and documented additional specimens" or similar to make it even clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
"Later papers displayed some of the undescribed fossils" Give dates?
Fixed
The history section should go into by who and when the taxon was named.
Fixed
"Since the holotype lacks any jaws" Is "any" necessary?
Fixed
"preserves any eyes" likewise.
Fixed
Were the people who named it involved in the original discovery and the various papers mentioning it before it was formally described?
Sylvain Charbonnier (2014 to 2016) and Daniel Sotty (1982 to 2016). Both of these people didn’t write much about it other than it existed, so is naming them twice really necessary?
It's good for context to know who continually worked on these taxa, you don't need to mention their full names at second mention. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Alright, after saying who described the animal, I put this:
"Two of these researchers (Daniel Sotty and Sylvain Charbonnier) worked on material that mentioned Antennipatus before its description." RenaMoonn (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Ok, you don't have to give their full names at second mention, and I think you could even just state it in a parenthesis at the end of the preceding sentence "(Sotty and Charbonnier had published on the animal before its formal description)" or such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
"Antennipatus gets its genus name from its well-preserved, onychophoran-like antennae." But do we know what the compound words mean?
Genus name: doesn’t say. Species name: does say, but only indirectly
"this is preserved as hole" A hole?
Fixed
Interestingly, there seem to be supplementary materials such as a 3D model and a video. They could be incorporated into the article, but of course, might be a bit technical. I can help with that in case. If we can get the above to work, perhaps they can be used to fill out some of the white space left in the article, which looks a bit unfortunate.
For Antennipatus? I know there are ones for Cretoperipatus, but not this. Gonna look for these and see if they exist. Yep, they definitely exist, the video doesn’t look all that interesting, though I’d definitely appreciate some help with the 3D model
Ok, I'll see if I can make it work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately the 3D model is on another site with a non-commercial licence[2], so we can't use it. We can only use the video because it's in the paper itself. I think it's interesting enough, if you want to use it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I guess I'll upload it after all. It makes the information more accessible, and there's easily a space for it RenaMoonn (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Note it has to be converted into an ogv or webm file to work here, I can help with that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I've uploaded the video here[3], and made a Commons category for Antennipatus files here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
"Before it's description" Should be "its".
Fixed
" However, the they didn’t preserve" Stray "the" and contractions are discouraged.
Fixed
"MNHN SOT003122a & b. Notice the preservation of plicae by visible ridges and dermal papillae." Coulds also state which letters correspond to which. "MNHN SOT003121a & b. This fossil has well preserved antenna, slime papillae, and a putative mouth with obscured jaws. Slime papillae are noticeably shorter than the other limbs." Likewise.
Added a part in the History of discovery and naming section about what “a” and “b” correspond to. If people really wanna know what part of the image is which, they can just click on it and read the actual image’s caption.
I'm not sure this really helps the reader, it needs to be directly in the captions for easy parsing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Changed the captions so you know what specimen is the part and counterpart. Hopefully this fixed the issue RenaMoonn (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
The point is that when the reader sees the image and the caption, they should be easy to understand the context without having to check the article body text. See the taxobox caption in for example Mimodactylus and Diodorus scytobrachion for how it would look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
"Before it's description, Antennipatus was considered virtually identical to Helenodora and possibly a member of the genus" By who and what year?
Is saying who said what here even necessary? This is from before the official description, and much of the “when did it happen” info is conveyed in History of discovery
It's a new section with quite some text between it and the former, so personally I would for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
What they contributed isn't relevant enough for another name mention (if you read the material, its one to a couple lines of text). Still, I did rearrange the citations so the reader can check what articles made what claims a bit easier (only the 1982 source considered Antennipatus virtually identical to Helenodora)
Like with the duplinks, I'm not budging on this RenaMoonn (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
In general, the various statements under Classification could need author attribution and dates for context of the changing views. For example "However, later studies treat it a true onychophoran of uncertain position or conservatively as a stem-group representative.[5][7]".
Fixed. This is a really good recomendation.
Do we know anything more about its lifestyle that could be added?
Doubt it, from my knowledge I went through almost every publicly accessible source that mentioned it. I also went through the sources for other animals (Antennacanthopodia, Cretoperipatus, Succinipatopsis, and Helenodora) and haven't found anything indirectly about its lifestyle either.
You go a bit into it under Terrestriality, but is there more to say about its ecology and environment, since we often have sections specifically about that in palaeontology artists? What taxa it lived alongside, more about the geological strata, etc.
I originally considered this, but since nothing was really mentioned and I don’t want to do any synthesis, I decided to exclude a Paleoecology section.
It's not synthesis for our purposes if it doesn't present unpublished ideas. All it does is provide context for the subject, and is common in all promoted palaeo articles. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
"Antennipatus is an extinct genus of French onychophoran" Probably say "from what is now France" instead, a bit odd to call a prehistoric taxon "French".
Fixed
Likewise, the history section should specifically state it was found in France.
It already does: “found in the Montceau-les-Mines lagerstätte of Central France.”
"notable for being the oldest confirmed onychophoran fossil" I'm not seeing this stated outright in the article body, and the intro should have no unique information.
Fixed
"Antennipatus highly resembles modern velvet worms" Generic name needs italics here.
Fixed
The intro seems rather short, even with an article this size. Could it be padded out a bit? The intros are supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
This seems to remain unadressed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Added some replies and further points above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
It's getting close, and I've added some comments above. But we need to find a solution for how to get adequate stratigraphy and palaeoecology/environment info included, as this is simply standard for paleo articles (doesn't even necessarily have to be an entire section). If we want to avoid it here, we need to start a wider discussion about it at the palaeontology project talk page, because the long-standing consensus is to include such info, and if we don't want to do that, we need to overturn that consensus. Jens Lallensack had some good points about it on Discord, and if we end up agreeing this kind of info is obligatory, I can't really promote the article until it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the bolding of comments mean? FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, it’s just to highlight issues that haven’t been resolved RenaMoonn (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, strikethroughs are probably more standard for that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, fixed the rest of the issues you addressed (too short of an intro, lack of a paleoecology section, image layout).
I decided to label the paleoecology section "paleoenvironment", since ecology deals with predatory-prey relationships and we don't have any published studies on how Antennipatus interacted with the region's food web (though going off it's slime papillae, it was likely a predator). I also reworded the article and added a bit more information I learned (like the difference between annuli and plicae), so you can go back to reviewing it.
Sorry for taking so long to get this done, I just had a lotta schoolwork and some fun personal issues to deal with. RenaMoonn (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I think it's looking great now, I'll fix some minor issues myself (contractions are discouraged), and then promote. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You've used pixel size forcing to adjust the thumbnail size of some images, but this is discouraged, since it then doesn't adapt to different screen sizes. Instead you should use the upright parameter, as in the map and other images in Nasutuceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks like you added notes to yourself rather than the actual Paleoenvironment text? FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Several instances of the name have since been added without italics, should be fixed.
"Antennipatus montceauensis is an extinct species" should probably be introduced at the genus level, as that's the article title. The full binomial should of course also be given n the intro when you present the species, though " The animal is the sole member of its genus".
"a group colloquially known" Commonly would be more understandable for most readers.
"The animal preserved rings*" The fossils preserve. Or the animal has.
"Antennipatus was originally thought to be a member of the genus Helenodora. However, this quickly dismissed after its description." Could be one sentence.