Talk:Hughmilleria

	Hughmilleria has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Hughmilleria 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2018 Good article nominee Listed September 25, 2018 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance 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 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hughmilleria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718202232/http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/tetlie_2007_PX3_DistribDispersalEurypterida.pdf to http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/tetlie_2007_PX3_DistribDispersalEurypterida.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I appreciate the review. Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will leave the lead section for the time being and come back to it later.
• In the description section, you start in the present tense and then move on to the past tense and back to the present. You really need to stick to one or the other.

Text changed.

• The description section launches straight into the similarities and dissimilarities of the Hughmilleriads with the more derived eurypterids and Eurypterus, but it could do with a few opening sentences stating what its basic body plan is.

Done.

• "But in spite of its similarities with Eurypterus, the marginal compound eyes, his relatively large chelae" - should be "its relatively large chelae".

Done.

• " its subquadrate prosoma (head), his medium-sized chelicerae," - again, "his" is inappropriate.

Done.

• Where possible, state who people like "Clifton J. Sarle" are, and where places like the "Pittsford Shale Member" are, wikilinking them where you can.

Done.

• "En 1961" - presumably you mean "In".

Yes, it was a mistake.

• There is some repetition between the first paragraph of the "Classification" section and the preceding section.

I rewrote the text a bit so they do not look so much alike.

• "Ludlovian epoch" - Is this the same as the Ludlow epoch?

Yes, I changed the text to avoid confusion.

• Wikilink or gloss epimera, opercular, xiphosuran, ostracod, lithology, biota, and anything else a bit obscure.

Done.

• Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking back now at the lead section:

• The lead section is supposed to summarise the main body of text so there should be no need for citations in the lead section.

Citations removed.

• "With the biggest specimen measuring 20 centimetres (7.9 inches) in length, Hughmilleria is considered a small genus of eurypterid." - Two things here, 20cm is obviously an approximation, a rounded number, so 7.9 inches is too accurate. Also, a small genus means a genus with few members rather than a genus of small eurypterids.

Text changed.

• When you have dealt with the points I raise above, I propose to do a little light copyediting to improve the prose, rather than listing the various things I noticed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I inform that within a few hours (right now I can not) I will remove the species section and redistribute the information from the section in other sections, as in other eurypterid articles. Super Ψ Dro 15:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already did it, can continue with the review. Super Ψ Dro 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are in the public domain.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This review has given me much more confidence about myself and my articles. Super Ψ Dro 19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hughmilleria shawangunk.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]