Talk:Succinipatopsis

Succinipatopsis 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.
Review: June 20, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Animals Low‑importance

Succinipatopsis is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: RenaMoonn (talk · contribs) 02:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one now:

In the taxonbox, can we be more precise than "Eocene"? And link Eocene?
- Baltic amber doesn’t really have an agreed upon dating since it was redeposited in the Pleistocene, but I can definitely link Eocene and give a broad date though. RenaMoonn (talk) 5:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Its location or even country of origin is unknown, as neither were mentioned in the papers that described or originally mentioned it. – This implies that it is unknown because Poinar did not mention it, but the problem with amber fossils is usually that they are purchased from dealers and that the location is unknown for that reason. If you don't have more information on this, you could just remove the part "as neither were mentioned in the papers that described or originally mentioned it".
- Fixed. RenaMoonn (talk) 5:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The origin of the animal's species or genus name is unknown, as neither were not mentioned in the original description – also here, you are implying more than the source actually provides. The etymology is not necessarily "unknown" (it might be self-evident to other researchers); the author could have mentioned it elsewhere, we can't prove that just with this source. Just write that the etymology was not provided in the original paper, that's sufficient.
- I’m almost certain that Poinar didn’t mention the etymology elsewhere. After all, I’ve looked through all papers that directly mention the animal (and most studies on onychophoran paleontology). Still, you have a good point, I’ll just change it to “The etymology of the animal's species or genus name was not provided in its description”. RenaMoonn (talk) 5:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Succinipatopsis was encased in amber – Is the specimen lost? I am confused about your use of past tense when describing the specimen.
- Fixed. RenaMoonn (talk) 5:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

was covered with a fine deposit – what does this mean?
- Poinar doesn’t say what it is, but I’m guessing it’s soil. RenaMoonn (talk) 5:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Succinipatopsis had a purplish-black[1] or black tint with no traces of color diffusion into the amber. – You are talking about the genus here (based on grammar), but seems like you are talking about the preservation of the specimen?
- Fixed. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

When first described by Poinar, Succinipatopsis was classified using an old definition of Onychophora that included various Paleozoic lobopodians. – This would mean that the definition was already "old" when Poinar described it. Do you perhaps mean an "now outdated" definition?
- Fixed. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Succinipatopsis was placed in Ontonychophora due to its members having – quite confusing as there is only one "member", right? (Assuming that "its" refers to Succinipatopsis) Why not just remove "its members having"?
- No, Ontonychophora has three members (Succinipatopsis, Tertiapatus, and Helenodora) in three separate families (though those are kinda obsolete). I made a cladogram to better demonstrate how the phylum used to be organized since it seems unclear. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  - I think you misunderstood. The issue is that grammatically, "its members" does not refer to Ontonychophora but to Succinipatopsis. Just needs re-wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh, sorry bout that. Hopefully my rewording fixes the problem RenaMoonn (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: suggest to replace "et al." with "and colleagues to comply better with WP:MTAU.
- Nah, the cladogram explaining the old systematics should help with this though. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You have some overlinking; no need to link "foot" and "claw" in every single paragraph.
- I like having some degree of overlinking since it’s useful to mobile users (concepts are easier to click on and learn about). However, I’ll remove some of the more common ones like feet and claws as most people know what those are. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure you need the subsection headers in "Classification". At least not the sub-subsection headers for the individual paragraphs.
- I think the formatting is useful due to how much this organism's classification has been debated. Because of that, I’m deciding to keep it. I stole part of this formatting (the sub-subheaders) from the Tully Monster page and I kinda like it. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Need a paleoenvironment section with some background on Baltic Amber, and especially how the environment looked like and what the climate was like.
- I couldn't find any paleoclimate info, but I did mention what type of tree made the amber, the amber's controversial age, and some of the groups of animals that lived alongside Succinipatopsis. RenaMoonn (talk) 6:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That should be all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, addressed many of the critiques you brought up. Also listed some additional info behind why I made the decisions I did. RenaMoonn (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I copy-edited the new section. Just one response above, then we should be done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your response so if everything's fine, feel free to give your final verdict! RenaMoonn (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent – great work! I am promoting this now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.