Talk:Tujiaaspis

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zzz plant (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Reconstruction of Tujiaaspis

• ... that Tujiaaspis (pictured) had a single pair of ridge-like fins that may have been the precursors to our arms and legs?

• Source: Gai, Zhikun; Li, Qiang; Ferrón, Humberto G.; Keating, Joseph N.; Wang, Junqing; Donoghue, Philip C. J.; Zhu, Min (28 September 2022). "Galeaspid anatomy and the origin of vertebrate paired appendages". Nature. 609 (7929): 959–963. Bibcode:2022Natur.609..959G. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04897-6. hdl:1983/39f23cba-4a2b-4d8f-92fe-dbfc89869c26. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 36171376. Retrieved 23 February 2025.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Makeship
  • Comment: Very interesting find as the first galeaspid with body preservation, giving insight into the evolution of fins in early fish. Its fins weren't articulated but acted as a kind of hydrofoil, and the authors presume that they would have differentiated in the ancestors of jawed fish, with the pectoral fins (ancestors of our arms) splitting first, and then the pelvic fins (our legs) resulting from the rest being bunched up, with both becoming articulated down the line. Its headshield also makes for a very good bottle opener.

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC).

• Page was 5x expanded recently enough. Nominator only needs one QPQ, which has been done. The citations are all to scientific papers, so no reliability problems. I do not have access to the source cited for the hook, so I will need a quote from the paper in order to verify. Also, I believe the use of first and second-person pronouns is discouraged on Wikipedia, so you may need to revise the hook to not say "our". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! You might have access to the paper through the Wikipedia Library – otherwise, from the abstract:

The ventrolateral fins are compatible with aspects of the fin-fold hypothesis for the origin of vertebrate paired appendages. Galeaspids have a precursor condition to osteostracans and jawed vertebrates in which paired fins arose initially as continuous pectoral–pelvic lateral fins that our computed fluid-dynamics experiments show passively generated lift.

Regarding the hook, maybe ... that Tujiaaspis (pictured) had a single pair of ridge-like fins that may have been the precursors to human arms and legs? The original paper doesn't explicitly mention humans, but it does refer to jawed vertebrates in general, and the Nature commentary on it (also used as a source in the article) goes straight to the hook with This evidence is relevant to our understanding of the evolution of paired fins and, by extension, human limbs. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Alt1 is approved. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Nominator: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this review. The usual boilerplate: please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria – my aim is to make the article as good as possible – but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: My comments are below - basically just some small clarifications. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Great work, passing now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• I'm iffy about the illustration; while it seems similar to reconstructions from published papers, it doesn't indicate which it's based on.
  • Removed it, as I couldn't find which reconstruction it was based on. Sadly, there aren't any available images on Commons, and none of the illustrations in the papers are freely licensed (except for a tiny, low-quality tail silhouette). I found this illustration by Nobu Tamura, who I know released some content under a free license, but I can't find the source to verify the license (or the paper it is based on). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Looks like this might be the source (although it has a watermark unlike the other one). No indication of a license, meaning I'll probably have to create a DeviantArt account to ask him there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Give brief context (1-4 words) for "eugaleaspidiform" so readers don't have to click on the link
  •  Done. I added "armored jawless fish" and linked it to Ostracodermi as it's a good description-based term, although I'm okay with unlinking it as it isn't used as a taxon anymore. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Mention how long ago the Telychian was (matching the value shown in the infobox and prose)
  •  Done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• The lead is written in the past tense, but the description and classification sections are in the present tense. I don't have a preference, but they should match.
  •  Done, switched to past tense everywhere. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Are there any useful articles to link "headshield", "sensory canal", and/or "ventrolateral fin" to?
  • Sadly, I searched, but the Galeaspida article only very briefly mentions the sensory canals, and, with Tujiaaspis being the first known animal with ventrolateral fins, there isn't much hope for that one either. For "headshield", would Cephalaspidomorphi § Biology and morphology work? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  That link for headshield sounds good. Lacking articles for the others, I would suggest just adding a few words ("fins along the sides of the body" or similar, etc) to clarify. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

   Done for the headshield and fins. I realized I didn't actually define "sensory canals" anywhere in the article. Oddly, while Chen et al. have a very complete description of their patterns in galeaspids, they don't actually say what these canals are (besides, well, sensory canals) at all, only linking to a 1986 paper that I can't seem to find. That same section in Cephalaspidomorphi describes them as being a series of grooves over the whole surface, forming an extensive lateral line organ, but finding a galeaspid-specific source is much harder as all papers treat it as assumed knowledge. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the wording "supplied in freshwater". The source seems to read "freshwater input" which makes more sense. I would suggest removing the clause from the lead, and changing it to something like "with inflows of freshwater" later on in the article.
  •  Done. I tried to use a synonym, but your version is more appropriate. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Discovery and naming

• I would use semicolons to divide the list items - it wasn't clear at first how many locations were being described (especially because in many areas, a municipality is typically a subunit of a county, rather than vice versa)
  •  Done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Description

• If possible, add links as noted above, as well as for "cornual process" and "tail margin". If there aren't any articles to point to, it might be worth a few more words to explain.
  •  Done all except the sensory canals (cf. above). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Classification

• What does "recovered" mean in this context?
  •  Done, replaced with "found". It's jargon that gets used to talk about finding a phylogeny, but we can use a more accessible term here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Ventrolateral fins are also known in Miaojiaaspis seems to repeat what's said in the description section; my instinct would be to remove the corresponding sentence from the description since there's more context here.
  •  Removed from the Description section. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Paleoecology

No comments.

References

• There's a maintenance message (Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default) on the Chen et al source.
  •  Done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• The DOI for that source also fails to resolve, but I assume that's an issue with the CHNDOI service rather than this specific item?
  • This whole situation is a bit messy. On my end, the DOI resolves to a page providing links to the source in both English (the one I used) and Chinese. I had originally typed the source with the link to the English version, but it was reformatted by User:Chris Capoccia, whom I'm pinging to know if I can revert to the original. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  no problem. you can change it. DOI makes it look like source is in Chinese, but maybe it's not actually.   — Chris Capoccia 💬 02:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  The source is available in both Chinese and English. I think the version I originally linked to was specifically the English one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• All claims cited to Chen et al, Diogo, Eurekalert, Gai et al (2023), and Zhang et al (2025) verify. Other sources are paywalled.
  • A bit odd, as I could access all of them with only my Wikipedia Library access. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't even think to use TWL. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.