# Talk:Waptia

Since "marginal has a number of irrelevant associations, the jargon terminology needs to be explained  in a brief phrase, or substituted for the descriptive phrase that a non-professional would recognize. I'd have done this myself if I'd been capable. --Wetman (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried but can't figure out what the author meant as well. No explanation is given and "marginal" can mean anything from being located at the margins of the body (as in eurypterids and trilobites) to ommatidia being arranged in the margins of the eye (as in crustaceans). Lacking clarification, I thought it best to simply use the words the author used.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Waptia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk · contribs) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I'll give it a quick copy-edit, and return with any outstanding issues. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I just added a map. Hope I didn't edit-conflict anything.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It did a bit, but I saw what you had done. I don't think I've undone any of it... --Stemonitis (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, here are my comments from the first pass: --Stemonitis (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead and taxobox
The lead seems fractured and a little on the short side. It's probably worth re-writing it from scratch to ensure that it flows well. I think it could include from the Description and Taphonomy sections which make up the majority of the article.
On it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead somewhat. Still reads weird to me somehow, but let me know if I'm on the right track.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not really a GA requirement, but it would be nice to see articles on the family and order, to be able to put Waptia in context (and to avoid red links). Is the order/family monotypic, or are there other waptiids? From Miko Haaramo's site, it would appear that Waptiidae is the only family in Waptiida (Miko's normally pretty reliable, but it would be nice to have a printed source as well).
I know only one other member - Chuandianella, which I just made an article on. Probably enough to start an article on Waptiidae, but finding comprehensive sources that mention the two together is a bit problematic. I'll see what I can do, but it would probably be afterwards.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Pauloterminus spinodorsalis, though putative.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Just a stub though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Presumably "Walcott, 1912" is also the authority for the genus.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Description
"Fossilification" – isn't this just an unusual term for "fossilisation"? If so, we should use the latter.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Link "rostral plate" to rostrum (anatomy) if appropriate.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Link compound eye.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I would write "kidney-shaped (reniform)" as "reniform (kidney-shaped)". I might also be tempted to link reniform if the word is thought to be sufficiently unfamiliar.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Explain what is meant by "marginal". I notice that there has been some discussion on the talk page about this, but I feel that if we don't know what it means, we shouldn't be including it. It might just be a contrast with the (putative) median eye, in which case it is superfluous.
 Done. I've removed it altogether-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"The thorax is divided into two groups..." of somites? It's probably best to consistently use "somite" for body segments, to allow you to use "segment" for parts of appendages. The article isn't consistent at the moment.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"It forks into a pair of ... uropods." Check this. In crustaceans at least, the uropods derive from the previous somite, rather than branching directly from the telson.
IIRC it branches from the last abdominal somite before the telson, but I'll check to make sure. One source explicitly calls them "uropods". Others just use "tail flaps" or "caudal rami".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Yep, from the last abdominal somite. In contrast to the tail fan of Yohoia.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"In addition to stabilizing the body while swimming, a quick flick of the tail fan can rapidly propel the animal backwards. It may have functioned as a means of escaping predators like in modern shrimps." It strikes me that these two sentences should be more closely linked. I would write "... propel the animal backwards, which may have functioned ..." I would also write "shrimp" rather than "shrimps", but that may be a style issue or a regional variation.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Discovery
Change "as well as" to "alongside"?
 Done Though it might get confused with a locational meaning of "beside it".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The placing of the references is odd here. The important facts are that Waptia fieldensis is named after Mount Wapta and Mount Field, but the citations are all on the next sentence ("Field is also the name of a nearby town"). I presume that the references are for the sentence on naming, and I'm not sure that the town is worth mentioning. (It should be in brackets if mentioned at all.)
 Done Removed mention of the town altogether. As presumably, it too was named after the mountain.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"published by Walcott in 1912" Any details on where? Perhaps a direct citation? It can probably be extracted from the caption to the {{multiple image}}, which can then use a normal reference, too.
 Done It was already linked to the actual paper available on Wikisource. Also used elsewhere in the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Taphonomy
Fix the redundancy in this sentence – "Based on the number of individuals recovered, Waptia fieldensis constitute about 2.55% of the total number of organisms recovered" – and it should be "constitutes", since the species is singular (even if the specimens are many).
 Done Removed the first "recovered" and changed to "constitutes"-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Taxonomy
In Canadian English, is it "paleontologists" or "palaeontologists"?
Unsure about this. Walcott was actually American, and much of the work in the Burgess Shale is by the Smithsonian. Should we use Canadian or American English?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the range of the organism is almost always the critical factor. Since Waptia is only known from Canada (ignoring the possible Utah specimens for now), I think the article has to be in Canadian English. It may still be that moden Canadian usage is to follow the American spelling. I couldn't see anything in our article on Canadian English and my own web searches were inconclusive. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Seems like paleo- is more predominant in modern Canadian. That said, I've changed one instance of -ize to -ise, as the verb is Latin-derived.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Change "taxonomical placement" to "taxonomic placement". Even in British English, "taxonomical" is overcompensation. ("Taxonomical" also appears in the current lead.)
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't clear to me: "it lacks identifiable mouthparts to be classified ... "
Specialized mouthparts (maxillipeds I think?) are apparently important in identifying whether an arthropod is crustacean (or related to it) or not. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, maxillipeds/cephalic appendages. See the abstract in Briggs 1983.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
How can ref. [6] (Taylor, 2002) back up a clause beginning "as of 2012"?
More from my perspective admittedly. The supporting sentence in Taylor, 2002 is: "Neither Waptia fieldensis nor the Chengjiang waptiid Chuandianella? have yet been described in detail (although both have been briefly discussed and figured in the literature; see Conway Morris et al. 1982; Briggs et al. 1994; and Chen and Zhou 1997 for examples; Text-fig. 11)." I have extended it to 2012 since there have still been no studies since then, and it wouldn't exactly be correct if I said "since 2002" or not include a reference date altogether.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Paleoecology
I feel that this section might just as well be called simply "Ecology". In an article on the geology, then "palaeoecology" would be appropriate, but the animal had ecology, just like any living species.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In popular culture
Remove this section unless you can discuss the authors' motivations for putting Waptia on the cover. If they have a blurb stating something along the lines of "We chose Waptia to grace the cover of this book, since it is the most iconic of the Burgess Shale taxa", then say so. Otherwise, the section is worthless and should be removed.
 Done-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Check the reference formatting. A number are missing DOIs and similar identifiers (not strictly a GA requirement, but good practice). One or two include ISSNs, which I don't think are necessary. I also don't think it makes sense to include the publisher for journals, especially not ones we've got articles on, and not in many other cases, either. (I think it's pretty clear who publishes the Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, for instance.)
On it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done Added what doi's I could find. Some of the older ones are more elusive though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've got a fairly busy weekend coming up, but I hope to be able to give this article more attention on Monday. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, same here as well.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey again, please excuse me for a couple of days on this. Tried rewriting the lead but can't seem to get it to sound right. That said, I have a rush job come up. It has to be done within two days, so I'll have to put this off till Thursday. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's fine; it gives me time to check some of the references. (I'm not expecting to find any surprises, but it ought to be done.) --Stemonitis (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely close to GA status, but I do still have a few queries: --Stemonitis (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does the map display the location of the Burgess Shale in terms of Alberta, when the location is in British Columbia (as the map confirms)? I think you should  be able to use {{location map}} and File:Canada British Columbia location map 2.svg to achieve the same effect, if you don't want to make a whole new image.
 Done Location map doesn't work on the taxobox for some reason (shows a [[file: |borderless|alt]] text above the image). So I rendered it large, took a screenshot, cropped it, and overwrote the original png file. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Absent or simply not fossilised" – I would rephrase as "absent or not preserved". There are different forms of preservation, and "simply" seems like a value judgement.
 Done
"... as a proto-shrimp" – will this be clear to a lay reader?
 Done Reworded to "primitive shrimp"
I still think that "it lacks identifiable mouthparts to be reliably classified within the crustacean crown group" is unclear. Presumably, it is trying to convey that Waptia lacks some specific arrangement or form of mouthparts, which would have enabled it to be classified as a true crustacean, but that's conjecture on my part.
 Done Actually no mouthparts are identifiable at all. i.e. what arrangements the mouthparts might have had is unknown.
I still think "as of 2012" is original research. You can report that Taylor said no further work had been done, but you can't really make claims about the intervening decade on the basis of that reference.
 Done Alright. I've removed the date altogether. Is the reference enough or should I explicitly add "Taylor, 2002" to the text?
I can't see any mention of the eyes being "reniform" (or "kidney-shaped") in either Parker (2005) or Raymond (1920).
 Done Ugh. Can't find where I saw that either. I could've sworn it was Raymond who specifically used the term. Easier to just remove it for now I guess, though all pictures (of the fossils themselves) do confirm that they are quite obviously reniform (See the zoomable pictures in the Royal Ontario Museum page, for example).
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I also can't see any source which calls them uropods. Caster & Brooks call them "cercopods"; Raymond calls them "swimmerets"  [sic]; Taylor & Collins call them the "tailfan". If one of the later sources does use the term, then by all means keep it in. If not, as it's only a parenthetical remark, it's probably safe to lose it.
Taylor 2002 specifically uses the term to tie together the Waptiidae, with the tailfan term (used previously by Chen & Zhou) in scare quotes: They suggested that it has strong affinities with W. fieldensis, based on several shared features: carapace valves joined by a medial line, not a hinge; the presence of a pair of 'telson flaps' (uropods); and paired antennae and eyes. and Some of the features uniting these animals, such as the presence of a bivalved carapace, the presence of a segmented abdomen, and the occurrence of uropods associated with the telson, are also present in several other Cambrian taxa... I guess I used the wrong named ref there, should have been <ref name="taylor2"/> not <ref name="taylor"/>. The confusion stems from the fact that I didn't realize I was using the same names for the two different sources until later on.
Taylor & Collins don't seem to mention the rostral plate. The other ref. which would back that up, Walcott (1931), currently links to Steele & Forester (2002: "Variation in the relative importance of sublethal effects of predators and competitors on growth of a temperate reef fish")!
ROFL, reef fish! Sorry. The hazards of expanding more than one article at a time I guess. Will dig into my refs again and find the relevant passages.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done I've corrected the link to Walcott 1931. It mentions the rostral plate on p. 22: Rostral plate. — A small triangular rostral plate with narrow, sharp, longitudinal median ridge has been seen in four specimens; it is located in the median line between the antennae.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I am now satisfied that this article fulfils the GA criteria. Congratulations! --Stemonitis (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)