Talk:Pseudoscorpion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pseudoscorpion was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 15 September 2006 |
 |
 |
||
| A | This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
this thing is ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Actually, I find it rather charming. Especially compared to things like dust mites. IronChris | (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link to References
I know a biologist who has a list of publications concerning pseudoscorpions from 1912 to 2006 on their web site:
http://earthworksresearch.com/psuedoscorpion-references-published-from-1912-2006/
Would this be a good link for the reference section of this article?
pale 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article review
I just can't help but think this fails at a key point of the Good article criteria: "(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;" I'm in the third year of a Zoology degree, so was able to follow it, but "The abdomen, known as the opisthosoma, is made up of twelve segments, each guarded by plate-like tergites above and sternites below." is awkward. It would be far better to briefly explain terms here, than to let links handle the definitions.
It could also use a labelled anatomical drawing, but I don't think that's absolutely necessary for GA status.
The second paragraph of the evolution section degenerates into babble: "This is also supported by the advanced nature of that oldest fossil; it has all of the traits of a modern pseudoscorpion, rather than being some kind of primitive transitional stage on its way to developing the features of this group. This is also not-unusual, as many of the very first land-arthropod fossils show advanced terrestrial features, giving the impression that they had been on land a long time, but simply not preserved as fossils up to that time. Part of this would be a result of geological activity; the suitable land areas have mostly become seabeds, or been subsumed entirely into the mantle by continental drift. Indeed, fossils from the very earliest land animals are extremely rare already, for those very reasons; going back slightly farther, mere chance could result in few or no fossils surviving." I presume this is something to do with preventing it being quoted as evidence for creationism? Still, it's disjointed and choppy.
The "Growth" contains very little about growth.
It could, perhaps, use more information about how much variation is found in the order, niches filled, and perhaps particularly notable species or genera, if any. As it is, it's mainly anatomical description.
...As it is, I just don't think this is GA material, though it isn't too far off. I'd be willing to take another look after revisions are made - leave a message on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wow, I saw one of these once on my wall!
I was freaked out cuz I thought it was a scorpion.. but I couldn't find any tail.. eventually i convinced myself that it just had big pedipalp-shaped antennae that were casting a shadow on the wall creating the illusion of two claws in a pincer...
