# Talk:Acutiramus

I added an anatomical description from the TIP.  At what point does this cease to be a stub?--Digthepast (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When an article is more than a short paragraph, I'd say. On this note, I wonder if the restoration shows the arms too robust, Ichthyovenator? Doesn't seem to match the fossils. I could try to fix it, or maybe the artist, Apokryltaros, could. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely appears to be that way. I also think that the swimming paddles may be slightly too robust going by this image further down in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I should get back to work on revising that restoration of mine, especially considering how old it is.--Mr Fink (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acutiramus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914133710/http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/taxon/chel/18609.html to http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/taxon/chel/18609.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029031227/http://www.palaeos.com:80/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Eurypterida/Pterygotina.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Eurypterida/Pterygotina.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acutiramus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

....only reaching lengths of 20 centimetres (7.9 in). - err, why not 8 in?
7.9 would be more precise, changed to 8 in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Many pterygotid eurypterids, such as Jaekelopterus and Pterygotus grew to gigantic proportions.  - a comma after Pterygotus?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Other giant pterygotid eurypterids, such as Jaekelopterus and Pterygotus, were very visually acute ...meaning they looked sharp? Why not just say they had good eyesight or good vision?
This terminology was considered okay in other pterygotid Good Articles, though I have clarified what it means in the text here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
had a comparably low visual acuity  - err, poor eyesight?
(See above). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, given it's an arthropod, we do have some Featured/Good Articles to compare with for templates/order - see [[1]] - we've generally been putting Taxonomy first above Description - partly because we're defining what something is before its attributes. Also this meant the description section (which is often where you want to include images) was then generally further down the page - and was further away from the taxobox, and hence the page looks less cluttered.
In other Eurypterid Good articles Megarachne and Jaekelopterus, "Description" is placed first, followed by "History of research" and then "Classification". I believe this follows the general format used in articles of WikiProject Paleontology, which these articles are also part of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Errr....see Livyatan, Ferugliotherium, Beringian wolf, Columbian mammoth..I agree some are the other way around but most aren't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I would again refer to the other Eurypterid ones (which I also wrote) as they would be the ones that should be most similar in format. To me, putting "description" first makes more sense, especially since the classification sections of these articles discuss them in terms of Eurypterid classification and not animal classification at large which would not do much for defining what "they are". There are several GA and featured paleontology articles that put "Description" first, e.g. Spinosaurus, Apatosaurus, Archaeopteryx, Tyrannosaurus, Albertosaurus, Deinonychus, Deinosuchus, Elasmosaurus, Istiodactylus, Velociraptor, Archaeamphora, Cairanoolithus, Waptia, Batrachotomus, Tiktaalik and Dimetrodon. Some others (Iguanodon, Opabinia) put "History of research" first. To me, putting the "Classification"/"Taxonomy" section first (though that seems to be the way it is in many of the GA and Featured paleontology articles, yes) does not seem mandatory, but I will change it if you feel it is absolutely necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Conformity is a tricky thing - over the years, trying to promote article consistency has been a challenge, especially reconciling the work of different groups of people that have spend many hours on working on particular subjects. For instance, many years ago, wed have Appearance, characteristics, and identification sections, all of which covered pretty much the same material as a description section. Strictly speaking, discussion of how an article conforms to others in that way is beyond the scope of a GA nomination, so is not a dealbreaker. I would say that sometime then we also started using taxonomy rather than classification...not sure why but I can't see a justification for using both terms as subject headings. The order of topics I agree has more articles going either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
link or define subquadrate
Defined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
...highly derived eurypterids.. - might wanna link derived here
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
enlargened  (??) - why not just "large" - or "enlarged"
Yeah, "enlarged" would be better, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
all three of which in the past were classified as Pterygotus. - already stated this. and Jaekelopterus's origins not germane to this article
Removed the text in question. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
suggest linking benthic, anoxic, pelagic
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Any possiblity of expanding on ocnditions and associated life forms in the Paleoecology section would be good...e.g. any early coexisting fish?
The problem with that would be that since there are several known species and it might be excessive to go through associated animals of all species. I will see if I can find things to add though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be exhaustive. Just a few would be good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Added coexisting fish from two formations in which Acutiramus fossils have been found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
NB: Copyvio negative/clear
All in all a nice read, only a few quibbles really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:  

Pass or Fail:  - Now all good apart from the model, which was taken in Japan and has been nominated for deletion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the image of the model, and moved around some of the others in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)