Talk:Onychopterella

Onychopterella is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 21, 2020.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 3, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
September 28, 2019	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 16, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Fluffernutter, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 February 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 July 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Size chart[edit]

Hello, Slate Weasel, I'm sorry to have to bother you again. I have researched more about the genus and it seems that O. augusti was larger, measuring a total of 14.3 cm in length, I guess the document I took the measurements of only took the length of the holotype. Also the differences between the species are virtually more notable than I thought. O. kokomoensis and O. pumilus should not have those prolongations at the end of the swimming leg, as well as a slightly shorter terminal spine (but this can be omitted) and a considerably longer telson. In addition, O. kokomoensis had two lateral extensions in the last segment, which none of the other species had. This image of a fossil of O. kokomoensis can also serve as a reference for O. pumilus except in those extensions of the last segment. There are more images in the article if you need more. Can you change the current silhouettes according to these changes? Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do today or tomorrow. That is notably different! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better, Super Dromaeosaurus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed is better but O. kokomoensis still has those two projections at the end of the last appendage. The rest looks good now! Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about that. It's fixed now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks and have a happy new year! Super Ψ Dro 18:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Onychopterella/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I would give you two checkmarks if I could, as the prose does a very good job of explaining vocabulary and is generally very robust.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (focused)	The History of Research section is way too long, especially in proportion to the "Paleoecology" and "Paleobiology" sections, which are the meat of the article because they are about the species. It needs to be cut down.	Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Wow, the article got hugely revamped in a single edit! I'm impressed.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Are there any colored holotypes to be found for the genus? Adding a colored picture would help, but there might not be one, so this is a relatively minor point.	Pass

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion[edit]

I have not been able to find color images with a proper license, so I can not do anything at this point. Super Ψ Dro 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would dividing the history of research into two subsections work? Super Ψ Dro 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should. How are you planning to divide it? Temporally? Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I'm not sure all the details in the section are particularly necessary, although there might be certain conventions for extinct arthropods that I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the due diligence to find all the details in the first place. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the article is more than good enough to be a GA. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, saying a section should be cut down because other sections are shorter is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the GA criteria, and it makes sense the section is longer since it covers more than a century of research. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, User:FunkMonk, but my words have been misinterpreted. Keeping things in proportion, covering all the main subtopics to the article subject without going into unnecessary detail, is one of the criteria for GA articles. What I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that all the details in the section are relevant and that the size of the section makes the reader give outsized weight to the "History of Research" part of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had something like "First discoveries" and "Description of subsequent species" in mind. I do not agree with removing details, I think everything is useful in some way. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I agree with the splitting up the section. As to cutting down certain details, I'll take another look at the sections to pinpoint where I think it's too much. It might not even be the details themselves so much as the wording. If I find that, reviewing the article, I'm wrong, then the article definitely should be GA. If not, we'll work together to fix it. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I added the subsections. I'll be waiting for your next reply. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Good job writing this article! While I was uneasy about the length of the first section, breaking it up has helped a lot. I want to congratulate you on your work to bring this obscure species to GA status. The organization and prose were clear and there was a good depth of detail. Gug01 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

light copyedit[edit]

Noticed this at the guild request, and couldn't help but tweak a couple things. I'll do some more if it seems helpful, or step aside and let the guild do their job. Like everything biological, an interesting article. cygnis insignis 07:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all help is welcome. I have changed some things but your edits have been useful. Super Ψ Dro 09:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redundancy in lead and description[edit]

I noticed similar discussions of O. kokomoensis and O. augusti in the lead and description.

From the lead:

The largest species of the genus was O. kokomoensis with a total length of 16 centimetres (6.3 inches) long, followed by O. augusti (14.3 cm, 5.6 in) and O. pumilus (4 cm, 1.6 in).

From the description:

The size of the largest one, O. kokomoensis, is estimated at 16 cm (6.3 in), representing the biggest species of the family Onychopterellidae. O. augusti had a similar size, with the largest specimen reaching 14.3 cm (5.6 in).

This isn't my area of expertise so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of someone more knowledgeable to determine whether an edit is necessary or would be beneficial. --Theleot (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the lead is supposed to summarize the content that is present in the rest of the article I don't really see what the problem is with information on how large the animal is featuring in both the lead and the description. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Thanks for looking into it. --Theleot (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]