Jaekelopterus 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaekelopterus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The restoration of Jaekelopterus looks similar to the restoration of Pterygotus' restoration. Was that intentional? Enneigard ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If anyone else is able to find it, please add it to the taxobox. Thanks. Grundle2600 ( talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody decipher the Latin origin of the name?
I mean, it sounds an awful lot like Jackalope--which would almost be fitting, as a 2.5m scorpion is no more outlandish! 76.111.8.39 ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to write a stub on this Early Devonian formation, using whatever is the most common term for it. Is it the Klerf Formation or the Willwerath Lagerstätte?-- Wetman ( talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from its length, Arthropleura is not really the largest arthropod ever, and is certainly smaller than the likes of Pterygotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.208.248 ( talk) 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged out the current wording for a reason. The name doesnt actually mean "Jaekels wing, its derived from it. Taxonomic name don't ever have a vernacular meaning in the way that the sentence is structured, and you never see etymology sections in research papers wording it that way. We should be giving the etymology as its worded in the reputable paleontology literature, eg that the name is a patronym honoring Jaekel and and the Greek work "pterus" meaning wing.-- Kev min § 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed a couple of trivial layout errors.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig can't find anything above "unlikely". | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I'd say so, not presuming knowledge of the literature. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Well, welcome to the GA process. I've tidied up the refs a little. If you're thinking to go on to FAC, be advised that they look really hard at the refs, which must all be formatted exactly the same way, and you'll have to be very careful with how any primary sources are used, too. It would be very much appreciated if you'd take the time to review one or two articles from the list of GA nominations. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC) |
Is Simon J. Braddy American? Lacunae ( talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Jaekelopterus 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaekelopterus is part of the Pterygotioidea series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The restoration of Jaekelopterus looks similar to the restoration of Pterygotus' restoration. Was that intentional? Enneigard ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If anyone else is able to find it, please add it to the taxobox. Thanks. Grundle2600 ( talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody decipher the Latin origin of the name?
I mean, it sounds an awful lot like Jackalope--which would almost be fitting, as a 2.5m scorpion is no more outlandish! 76.111.8.39 ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to write a stub on this Early Devonian formation, using whatever is the most common term for it. Is it the Klerf Formation or the Willwerath Lagerstätte?-- Wetman ( talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from its length, Arthropleura is not really the largest arthropod ever, and is certainly smaller than the likes of Pterygotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.208.248 ( talk) 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged out the current wording for a reason. The name doesnt actually mean "Jaekels wing, its derived from it. Taxonomic name don't ever have a vernacular meaning in the way that the sentence is structured, and you never see etymology sections in research papers wording it that way. We should be giving the etymology as its worded in the reputable paleontology literature, eg that the name is a patronym honoring Jaekel and and the Greek work "pterus" meaning wing.-- Kev min § 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed a couple of trivial layout errors.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig can't find anything above "unlikely". | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I'd say so, not presuming knowledge of the literature. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Well, welcome to the GA process. I've tidied up the refs a little. If you're thinking to go on to FAC, be advised that they look really hard at the refs, which must all be formatted exactly the same way, and you'll have to be very careful with how any primary sources are used, too. It would be very much appreciated if you'd take the time to review one or two articles from the list of GA nominations. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC) |
Is Simon J. Braddy American? Lacunae ( talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)