# Talk:Tylopterella

Added description, beat on taxobox with the heel of my shoe, and went over formatting.--Digthepast (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tylopterella/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 23:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. It should take me a few days to get through this review. Starsandwhales (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Many readers may not be familiar with the term "ubication" used in the caption of the map of Ontario
Changed it to "location".
What's Dvulkiaspis?
A chasmataspidid genus as stated.
"Poorly known" and its variations seem too much like opinion
I don't see the problem here, Tylopterella is only known from one specimen that although well preserved, it's just too few material. Anyway, on the page 11 of the citation 3, it's described as an "enigmatic genus", so authors also recognize it as poorly known.
Paleoecology needs to be more thorough for this to be GA status
There's nothing else to add as far as I know. I've expanded several GAs with shorter paleoecology sections (the best example would be Strabops, as well as Bassipterus or Pittsfordipterus) that had no problem in passing. If I'm not mistaken, a GA doesn't have to be long, it has to include everything we know about a topic.
Sometimes this article strays off topic, but I'm not sure if that makes this unfocused
Where exactly?
I want a second reviewer because some of these I'm not sure on
I disagree with the reasons given in the edit summary of this edition. Almost all of my GAs have gone directly from stub to GA. The only reason why it's still rated as a stub is because I haven't changed it after expanding the article.


### Second set of eyes
Saw there was a request for a second reviewer--I'd be happy to lend my opinion.

Its paired tubercles or knobs in the top of its second to fifth segments differentiates it apart from many other eurypterids this is redundant (differentiates and apart). Can just be "differentiates it from..."
Done.
Perhaps gloss explanation to hypersaline for readability
Done. I think it's better to avoid the explanation in the lead so I have replaced it with "highly saline".
Confused when you say there is only one known specimen, then go on to say with only one almost complete specimen collected conserving the dorsal part of the body. This makes it sound as if additional specimens have been found that don't conserve the dorsal part of the body, which contradicts the previous statement
I have replaced "conserving" with "which conserves". Is it fine now?
I'm still seeing the same issue...The total size of the only known specimen is estimated at only 7.5 centimetres (2.9 inches).[1] Okay, there's only one specimen ever known...
Tylopterella is a little-known genus, with only one almost complete specimen collected which conserves the dorsal part of the body. still makes it sound like other, more fragmentary specimens have been collected. Perhaps instead you could say: "Tylopterella is a little-known genus; the type specimen of T. boylei represents the only record of the genus thus far."
Done. I have modified your suggestion to continue saying that the specimen preserves the dorsal part (and also to avoid a repetition of the word "genus").
Fixes my issue with the sentence, thanks!
You say that its carapace had extraordinary thickness--might be good to throw in a measurement or a ratio
As long as I remember, I think none is specified in any document.
Indeed, that appears to be the case
Good job glossing explanations in description
Thanks!
Are there two eyes? Might be good to have a number here: The ___ eyes were more or less laterally placed
I think this is part of the basic structure of an eurypterid and it shouldn't be mentioned on the article of a genus but on that of the order. Anyway now it can be intuited by the explanation given to "equidistant".
Agreed
I'm unsure what you mean by Exactly among them in relation to the eyes and ocelli. Do you mean equidistant? 
Yes, exactly. Maybe the definition can be improved.
This is a very long sentence: In 1912, the American paleontologists John Mason Clarke and Rudolf Ruedemann identified E. boylei as an aberrant form sufficiently different from Eurypterus to have its own subgenus, Tylopterus, favored by features like the short and compact body in general or the thick calcareous-chitinous integument of E. boylei, unlike Eurypterus, in which it was only chitinous
Now it's split.
 It includes one single species again a bit redundant, could just say "one species" or "a single species"
Done.
he suggested that T. boylei could have developed directly from Erieopterus I wonder if "descended" is a better word here? Developed makes me think of ontogeny while descended makes me think of evolution
Kjellesvig-Waering used exactly those words, but since the document is somewhat old, I've changed it.
Nitpicky and definitely not required for GA but would it be possible to add familial labels to your cladogram?
I will work on this later.
Taking a look at the present genera I realize that some families are represented by a single genus. In addition, in some cases (for example Dolichopterus and Strobilopterus) the next parent taxon two genera have in common is a superfamily. I think it would look quite inconsistent if I added labels for families in some cases and for superfamilies in others, so I think it's better to leave only the genera and species.
Therefore, Tylopterella represents the only eurypterid adaptation to hypersalinity should this be adapted instead, or do I misunderstand your meaning?
I think both forms can be used, but "adapted" is probably more understandable.
Really interesting article and I learned a lot! Enwebb (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! And I'm sorry for the delay, I forgot to take a look at this page. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Enwebb, pinging you since it seems same thing happened to you. Super Ψ Dro 06:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
At least I'm in good company, Super Dromaeosaurus. Looks good to me, though I'm still a little hung up on one piece of wording. And of course, the final say goes to the initial reviewer, Starsandwhales. Enwebb (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your words. Now the wording should be fine. Super Ψ Dro 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The article looks good to me, I think Enwebb should pass it. starsandwhales (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Just so you're aware, I updated the taxobox image with a higher res version from here:[1] Those Google Books links don't seem to work anymore, and the images from there are in tiny resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for notifying. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)