Talk:Megistaspis

GA review

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:Megistaspis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: African Mud Turtle (talk · contribs) 13:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I will review this. It's a pretty long article, so I'll read through it first, leave some comments, and then do a source check and a more detailed review. Hopefully I'll give you my initial comments in the next day or so, but I am admittedly rather glacial when it comes to GA reviews, both when I'm the reviewer or the nominator. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any LLMs in the writing process. African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Just checking: you didn't use LLMs in the writing process at all, did you?

Lead

• In general, there shouldn't need to be citations in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body and can be cited there.
• "Megistaspis (Ekeraspis) hammondi has preserved" – including the subgenus isn't customary in the name and rather clogs things up. I would leave it out unless the taxonomy is the subject of the sentence. That applies to all paragraphs.
• "as preserved appendages and a digestive system," – I'd reorder this as "Appendages and a digestive system of M. hammondi have been preserved; that species is believed to have served as a..."
• "using a swelling on the glabella" glabella is pretty technical for the lead. I'd just say "swelling on the head" and leave the more precise details to the description section.
• "Megistaspis plays an important part in the biostratigraphy of Ordovician Baltoscandia, with several biozones being named after Megistaspis species" Pronouns are allowed. "It plays..."

History

• No need to link to alpha taxonomy.
• "along with other species that are not considered valid today." MOS:TODAY.
• "earlier that same year". I'd say "earlier in 1851". There's a moment of confusion as to what year the "same year" is, since the paragraph begins "In 1956..."
• "Jaanusson created two subspecies:" Is it possible that you meant "subgenera"?
• "as well as suggesting the existence of a third M. planilimbata group" I think what this is meant to mean is "suggesting the existence of a third group, the M. planilimbata group", but in fact it reads as "suggesting the existence of a third M. planilimbata group, in addition to the first and second M. planilimbata groups" because that's what the adjective "third" attaches to. Some rejigging of word order and the addition of a comma or two may help clarify this.
• "M. (Megistaspidella) was split into the new genus Megistaspidella, while Megistaspis planilimbata and several of its relatives (split into the genus Plesiomegalaspis Thoral, 1946) was added to the family under the new genus Paramegistaspis and Plesiomegalaspis (Ekeraspis) was added to the family under the genus Ekeraspis." This sentence hurts my head. First, please cleave into two or possibly three shorter ones. Then: the parenthetical is confusing. What was split into the genus Plesimegalaspis? M. planilimbata, its relatives, or both? Also "under the new genus" and "under the genus" are confusing: was the name changed, or were they merged into a preexisting taxon?
• You don't need to cite the authority. For example: Paramegistaspis Balashova 1976 can just be called "Paramegistaspis".

Description

• "Megistaspis is a large species of asaphid trilobite" I thought it was a genus. I suggest "genus of large asaphid trilobites"
• "with M. (Ekeraspis) hammondi reaching a pygidial length of 9.5 centimeters excluding the pygidial spine (a total length of 28.5 centimeters excluding the pygidial spine), M. (Megistaspidella) maximus reaching a pygidial length of 10.5 centimeters, and M. (Megistaspidella) gigas reaching a pygidial length of 11 centimeters" specific examples get a little weighty for so early in the section. Just give us an idea of how large they are, on average. Maybe also name the largest and the smallest species.
• Less technical language, please. This is the hard part, I know. Please gloss, define, or find less jargonny alternatives for the following terms: preglabellar field, dorsal furrow, ogival point, free cheeks, process, genal spines, Panderian organs, pleural duplicature, pygidial duplicature, endopods. Tip: no one will complain if you give a few sentences that give a run-down of trilobite anatomy at the start of the paragraph, or add a sentence here and there introducing and defining a feature, and then in the next sentence say what that feature looks like in Megistaspsis species. See Balanus_trigonus#Description to get an idea of how I go about it. If you find a different way that works for you, go for it.
• I will continue this review, taking a break now. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I cleaned up some of the smaller issues with the lead and the History section and rewrote the Balashova paragraph of the History section entirely. I will work on the description section soon. African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Description (continued, 29 October)

• "Antennae can also be observed in many commercially sold specimens, but they usually exhibit varying degrees of cosmetic modification, including the addition of extra podomeres, the adding of spines to the abaxial side of the antenna, and the outlining of the rock surrounding the antennae with "cat ears"" Very interesting, but what are "cat ears"? (Also, this would make a good DYK hook.
• "The pygidium preserves three(?) pairs" This would be fine in a formal diagnosis, but Wikipedia articles expect a bit more explanation and verbiage.

Close paraphrasing: Quickfail

Reading the bit with "three (?)" mentioned above, I wondered if this was due to copy/paste or WP:CLOP from a source. It is. Much of that paragraph is copyright violations. Comparison. WP article on the left, source on the right.

−

The pygidium preserves three(?) pairs of small, simple caecae at the posterior end of the pygidial axis. However, it cannot be determined whether caecae were present along the length of the digestive tract. The crop and intestine are preserved in positive dorsal relief, while the caecae are display a negative ventral relief and were likely permineralized (possibly pyritized) in early diagenetic stages, possibly due to being a enzymatically active region, before being altered to leave a void.

+

The posterior end of the intestine seems to preserve three (?) pairs of small, simple caeca below the posterior part of the pygidial axis. However, due to the quality of preservation it cannot be ascertained whether caeca were present along the whole length of the digestive tract. The crop and intestine present a positive dorsal relief, while the caeca have a negative ventral relief. The former have the same texture and grain size as the matrix, indicating active sediment ingestion or rapid sediment infill. The digestive caeca were presumably permineralized (possibly pyritized) in the early diagenetic stages, preserving their shape and relief.

This is simply not acceptable. I would not be surprised if there were translation copyvios as well. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Further evidence of WP:CLOP: article (left) source (right)

−

Terracing exists only on the doublure, the articular facets of the thorax and pygidium, and the genal spines, while light terracing may exist along the margins of the free cheeks and pygidium. In forms with a long snout, terracing on the doublure exists only at the base of the snout. However, small pits (indicated on the internal surface by small tubercles) occur in the tests of all Megistaspis species and can be either closely spaced together or sparsely scattered across the test. The pits are not always evenly spread across the test; they may be crowded around the borders of the cephalon and sparse around the center. The pits may be of two different sizes, and in this case, the smaller pits form a background over which the larger ones are scattered. However, the pits can only be observed if the surface of the test has not suffered from weathering or corrosion. In some specimens where the surface of the test is peeled off, a perfectly smooth lamella is left which also belongs to the test. The pits are as distinct on the lamella as they are on the surface of the test. The pits can also be seen on the mold if the sediment is fine enough to reproduce almost microscopic details.[

+

The test of Megistaspis has terrace lines only onthe doublure, on the facets of the thoracic segments and of the pygidium, andon the genal spines. In forms with a long snout there are lines on the doublureonly at the base of the snout (PI. XI, fig. 7), a few Iines may occur on the uppersurface along the margin of the free cheek and the pygidium. Otherwise the testhas been considered to lack surface structures.On doser examination, however, very small pits (on the internal surfaceindicated by small tubercles) have been found to occur in all species, sometimes closeiy spaced (PI. I I , fig. I ), sometimes sparse. The pits may be of twosizes, and in this case the smaller ones form a densely punctuated backgroundover which the larger ones are scattered; on the pygidial border of M. heroican. sp. a fine furrow extends from each pit towards the edge (PI. I I , fig. z). Thepits can as a rule be seen only if the surface of the test has not suffered fromweathering or corrosion. In the species considered here the density of pits isnot the same in all parts of the test; thus the pits may be sparse in the centralparts and more crowded at the horders. It must be pointed out, however, thatthe scarceness of suitable material prevents at present the distinction of patternscharacteristic of different species. Pits of this kind were observed by TJERNVIK(1956) in Megistaspis planilimbata.It is interesting to note that in some specimens in which the test has peeledoff a thin, perfectly smooth lamella is left which evidently also belongs to thetest (cf. ST0RMER, I 930, PI. 1 2). On this lamella the pits are as distinct as onthe surface of the shell. Finally the pits can be seen on the mould if the sedimentis fine enough to reproduce almost microscopic details.

GA review

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:Megistaspis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: African Mud Turtle (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Expect comments over the next few days, but here's a few to start with:

• Earwig Copyvio Detector does not detect copyvio.
• There are no cleanup banners or tags.
• It's definitely stable.
• Citation notes:
  • Two of your references, 7 and 11, have minor errors.
  • One of the references is to a "FossilID.info" I haven't encountered this database before and therefore am uncertain of its reliability and necessity.
  • In the lists of species, it's inconsistent whether a species has a citation at the end of its entry. I would prefer, but not require, consistency.
• The Species section overall could use a tiny bit more expansion- personally, I'd like to know what makes each species different from each other. The History section, also, seems rather lacking given the number of species.
• I note a lack of paleoecology/environment section or subsection.

Good luck and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To respond to some of your comments:

• FossiilID.info is a database that is founded by several Estonian geological institutions, including but not only the Estonian Museum of Natural History. It seems to be fairly reliable when talking about taxa in Scandinavia.
• I tried to only mention important papers that significantly impacted the taxonomic concept of Megistaspis (e.g. adding subgenera) rather than simply adding new species.
• Paleoecology information on most species of Megistaspis is lacking; most papers simply state something like 'Volkhov stage of Petrograd' rather than talking about a geological formation. I added a note on distribution in the Species section.

African Mud Turtle (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hm, since the species won't be getting articles of their own, I would prefer the History section be much expanded so as to be more comprehensive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What would you want me to add to the history section? African Mud Turtle (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm drafting a rewrite for the history section here User:African Mud Turtle/Megistaspis (history) not anymore African Mud Turtle (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hm. Normally I'd say to include some more about the actual fossils, to give a better indication of how understanding of the genus has developed over time (or not). Reiterate the etymology of the genus name. Add the etymologies of the subgenera names, and the type species at least, perhaps. Remove the redlinks to the scientists unless you are certain they're notable. Provide a (brief, one-word) introduction for the rest (zoologist, paleontologist, geologist) except Pieter.

While the article is tidy as is, with 52 species and a history stretching back close to two centuries makes it look very scant in its current form. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I reiterated the descriptions of the subgenera to show why each subgenus was defined. The etymology of the genus name is already in the history section, but etymologies for the subgenera are not present.

I removed redlinks for most scientists, but I think that Tjernvik and Balashova did enough work to be notable. African Mud Turtle (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Hey everyone, where does this review stand? @African Mud Turtle: has everything been addressed, and thus this is ready for a re-review? @SilverTiger12: What else needs to be done before this is ready to be promoted? Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have attempted to address SilverTiger's concerns. African Mud Turtle (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• I have marked this review as needing a second opinion. SilverTiger12 can still continue their review if they return to this. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Second opinion: the article doesn't seem "scant", and that is at best a doubtful allusion to the GA criteria (all that is required is coverage of "the main points" which cannot be at issue here. The article has text on a range of aspects, more than one might expect for a fossil article; it looks at species diversity; and it seems to be richly cited. I suggest this is a straightforward pass. Given the lengthy delays, seemingly for multiple reasons, and the article's decent state, I'm boldly PASSing this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that fossil traders frequently outline the antennae of the trilobite Megistaspis with 'cat ears'?

• Source: https://doi.org/10.55407/geogaceta99641

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by African Mud Turtle (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

African Mud Turtle (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hook a little clickbaity, but explained in the article and the cited source. Good enough for me. Thanks for the good work. awkwafaba (📥) 02:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)