---

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

Nominator: RenaMoonn (talk · contribs) 05:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Gasmasque (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this one has been sitting for quite a while I'll go ahead and pick it up for review. This will be my first time providing a GAN review, so I may ask for a second opinion from another user before making a final decision. Gasmasque (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

A final stamp on the article, since the discussion below ended up quite lengthy.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is well-written, the lead has been expanded, and instances of editorializing have been removed. Lists and fiction do not apply.

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):

   All content is cited and is reflected in its given source. Minor concerns of close paraphrasing during the review have been rewritten and are resolved. There is no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Earlier concerns of comprehensiveness have been resolved. The article has been significantly expanded since the start of the review and now covers all aspects one would expect in a zoology or paleontology article. The article is focused, and the only tangential claims are important for explaining anatomy of ecology.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Content is neutral, and heavy emphasis on particular sources is the inevitable result of a small pool of researchers.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars or disputes.

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):

   The cladogram is properly cited and reflects its source, and the taxobox image is both appropriately licensed and scientifically accurate. The previous taxobox image, which had accuracy concerns, has been replaced.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All outstanding issues brought up in review have been corrected and I'm comfortable passing this as GA. Gasmasque (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I redid the article a bit to add some new information (and also a couple things I missed), so feel free to begin reviewing it. RenaMoonn (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments I'd like to give before a more complete article evaluation. Apologies that it has been quite a while since I picked this up, I've wanted to familiarize myself more thoroughly with Onychophora before evaluating the article.

• No issues with Copyvio or authorship detected, and no signs of edit-warring in the edit logs. Having read through the sources there don't seem to be any instances of too-close paraphrasing, at least as I would define it, and the article's scope is neutral.

Slight addendum: the second to last sentence of the current lead, listing off the features that make this taxon a "crown-group onychophoran", feels very close to the criteria for a "true onychophoran" given as part of the first sentence of Engel and Grimaldi's description, but simplified and superficially modified. This kind of paraphrasing is acceptable when giving the features used to define a taxon, as long as it is explicitly (both in-text and with citation) attributed to the author who made the claim (see [1]). This type of citation isn't something that would be or should have to be written in a lead section, though, so I feel like specifically listing off Engel and Grimaldi's criteria is too close for comfort, especially when it only describes the taxon's unique anatomy to a limited degree. Also, since you are intending to rewrite the description section to make it more comprehensible, I strongly suggest making it clear in-text and with citations that the anatomical information is coming from the more recent authors and not the 2002 authors who interpreted the animal backwards. Sometimes there really are only so many ways to say the same thing, but if only one specific source is saying it and is saying it one specific way, it is important to acknowledge that source very clearly (especially in this case where it is overriding the information of another heavily cited source). The same applies to the classification section to a lesser degree, but that is more appropriately attributed already. Gasmasque (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article currently cites seven papers, while a Scholar search yields 26 publications that have used the correctly-spelled taxon name. I don't doubt that the article's sourcing is adequate since this seems to be an obscure taxon and the most relevant few sources are cited, but could any other sources provide additional verification for some of the given claims? I also know that Burmese amber, its preserved ecosystem, and contained taxa are published on more extensively, but this is part of an issue I've chosen to discuss last.

• I went ahead and reviewed all papers that mentioned the animal when making the article (did this for my other onychophorans too). The references I don’t include mention the animal only once or twice, so that’s why I didn’t include them. One of the newer studies (Rediscovery and phylogenetic position of a long-lost Typhloperipatus williamsoni Kemp, 1913 (Onychophora: Peripatidae) after 111 years from Arunachal Pradesh, India) was relevant though, so I ended up referencing it in the classification section. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is definitely comprehensive, then! Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The age in the taxobox is given as 90-100 mya as in the 2002 paper, but two subsequent sources (source 3 and the supplemental material of source 7) give a much more precise age of 98.79 mya, plus or minus 0.62 Mya. Is there a reason you've opted for the older, broader date of occurrence? The article body says "about 100 million years ago" which is, while not inaccurate, probably less ideal than a more specific number.

• I didn’t change it because there wasn’t any readily available minimum age of (Kachin) Burmese amber. What I went ahead and did was mentioned the animal’s maximum age (98.79 ± 0.62 million years old) and then just left the minimum age the same as the 2002 paper. Supposedly, there’s unpublished data showing Kachin amber has a range of around 5 million years, so the 90 mya min date should more than cover that. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with some future-proofing, then, especially if this is more uncertain than I originally thought. Be sure to have the minimum age cited in the article body along with the maximum age, maybe with a remark like "In its original description the taxon was dated to 90-100 Mya, which was constrained with a maximum age of 98.79 ± 0.62 Mya by later researchers." Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The short description uses the family name Peripatidae, which a reader may not be familiar with. Modern velvet worm articles (see Epiperipatus, Eoperipatus, Mesoperipatus) tend to use "Genus of velvet worm" or "Genus and species of velvet worm" and don't specify a higher taxon. It may be better to shorten the short description to "Extinct genus of velvet worm found in amber" or even "Extinct genus of velvet worm", although it being an amber taxon may be significant enough to warrant mention.

• I’m currently working to make the short description sections of all Onychophoran articles a bit more informative (ex: “genus of Peripatopsid velvet worm” or “genus of basal Peripatid velvet worm”). The description should at least mention what family they’re from since velvet worms are an entire phylum of animals and you wouldn’t make a beetle’s short description “genus of arthropod”. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a genus of beetle's short description not ideally be "Genus of beetle"? I understand the sentiment, but I worry that a short description containing more specialist taxonomic terminology might be offputting since they are meant to be very short subheadings just to clarify the article's scope, at least as I understand it. Onychophorans don't have subdivisions with common names the way arthropods do, so I feel emphasizing this taxon is a velvet worm (which it is, in fact the only definite fossil example of one) is sufficient. This is a very minor point that does not affect the article, if you prefer a more detailed short description that is certainly not something to get hung up over and can be left as-is if you disagree. Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be better to expand the lead to two paragraphs, with the first noting occurrence, preservation, relations etc. and the second noting anatomy and paleobiology. This article is definitely quite short, but I don't think the current lead section serves as a complete summary as one paragraph.

• Gonna work on expanding the intro sometime later. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like the etymology paragraph "The genus name "Cretoperipatus" is derived from "creto-", since it lived in the Cretaceous and "Peripatus", the type genus of the family Peripatidae. The species name "burmiticus" references the fossil being encased in Burmese amber." could be worded differently. I assume the wording is a to avoid too-close paraphrasing from the 2002 source, but something shorter like "The genus name is derived from the root "creto-", meaning Cretaceous, and from "Peripatus", the type genus of the family Peripatidae. The species name, C. burmiticus, references the taxon being known from Burmese amber." would be preferable. I do agree that the etymology section is best placed as a separate paragraph.

• Yup, that's what I was trying to do. I went ahead and changed it. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good, I would consider this resolved! Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the opening of the description section, I think it would be preferable to refer to that particular fossil's state of preservation in present-tense if it is still intact. As I understand it, fossils and their preservation being referred to in past-tense is generally used to indicate the material is lost.

• Alright, I was referencing the preservational process in the past, but the sentence doesn’t change much if I talk about the specimen in the present. Went ahead and changed things anyway though. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a similar case in the lead, it might be best to make that present-tense too for consistency. Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to preface this by thanking you for your helpful article on onychophore papillae, which does improve the readability of this section. I do think, though, the whole description section could still go to be a bit more clear. As someone with only a passing knowledge of Onychophora, or invertebrates more generally, I do have some trouble following the descriptions of specific features present. This is very important information to include, given its partially diagnostic to the taxon, but if possible I think glosses or brief descriptions of traits like "scale ranks", "primarily papillae", "frontal organs", etc. would be very helpful.

• Definitely a good idea. “Primary papillae” and “scale ranks” will eventually link to my new dermal papillae article, but having a short explanation of these structures wouldn’t hurt. However, keep in mind that I’m currently overhauling the entire Onychophora article and still don’t fully understand everything about their anatomy (especially for more recently discovered things like the frontal, preventral, and ventral organs, ventral fields of modified scales, and interpedal structures). I made a couple of edits (mainly to explain what primary papillae are). However, if you'd like to schedule a VC on Discord to talk about the unclear parts, just DM me and I’ll find some time. In my opinion, the article being accurate, expansive, and understandable are the most important things for a GA. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The classification section doubles mention of close relation with Eoperipatus and Typhloperipatus. I think the wording here can be adjusted to avoid giving this piece of information in full twice. Maybe these sections could be merged?

• I went ahead and merged it, but wanna hear your thoughts on what I did. I personally liked the original layout better (brief overview and then two more detailed explanations) than what it is now, but you are the one reviewing my article (this could be a situation where we get a third opinion). RenaMoonn (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think information is lost in the current organization, and do find that it reads a bit better. If you do prefer the other one I don't think it is a big deal, though, and you can change it back. Gasmasque (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For now my final, and most important, comment is there there are not "Paleobiology" or "Paleoecology" sections, or a single section fully encompassing both. This also came up in Funkmonk's review of Antennipatus, and in this case I think there is enough information the Burmese amber to greatly expand the current 'Implications" section into a more traditional "paleobiology and paleoecology" section, which could include the zoogeography implications in a subsection. How much can be said about the actual biology of this taxon is definitely limited, it might be only a paragraph or so detailing general velvet worm behavior, but I think that would be helpful for readers and would not come across as unnecessary fluff. As Funk said before, if you disagree with the inclusion of this/these sections strongly enough it is worth bringing up with the rest of WP:Paleo.

• I’ve looked through all the sources and there isn’t enough material for a full fledged Paleobiology or Paleoecology section (though I could probably make a Paleoenvironment one). While erroneously called Paleoecology, the thing Funk and others want me to cover is Paleostratigraphy. I feel strongly about not including this due to the redundancy it creates, so would like to bring it up with the wider WP:Paleontology people. However, I haven't had the time to try and schedule a meeting. This is probably a good thing to discuss in a VC. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point about naming conventions being somewhat misleading, but I still think that an expanded, more detailed section on "Paleoenvironment and zoostratigraphy" would be ideal. If you really don't think that the paleobiology of the taxon could be expanded to any meaningful degree then that can be cut, but considering that a good amount of information on the paleoenvironment is provided within sources already on the page (source one, mainly, although the supplemental material for source two mentions organisms preserved in the same chunk of amber as one topotype specimen) I think that is valuable information. Maybe an additional paragraph to discuss the depositional conditions and broad-strokes contemporary organisms (specific trees producing amber and acknowledgement that the site preserves a diverse arthropod fauna) would be sufficient, I definitely don't think a long list of contemporaneous animal taxa would benefit the article, and I'm not advocating for that. Gasmasque (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have for now, although I still want to read through all provided sources in full and spot-check all the text. I've noticed you are still actively adding and changing the article as I write this, so I'm going to let the article contents settle and my points made here be addressed before committing to a more detailed review. I've also made some minor copy-edits to the article (and accidentally caused an edit conflict, oops), so please do review those and change anything you disagree with. Overall this is a strong article, but there are definitely some changes I think should be made before it gets promoted. Gasmasque (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An added comment: if the citations for multiple statements/sentences go to the same source it is OK to leave the in-text citation until the last used instance of that source in the paragraph. For example, in "Dermal papillae", source 2 alone is cited three times, when it could only be cited at the end of the paragraph. This would not impact the integrity of the citations and would not make it any more difficult to find the source in the text (this article does not use page numbers, a situation where this kind of citation would be warranted) and only makes the links to a specific reference in the "References" section appear excessive. Also, a subheading for "Citations" in the "References" section is not needed. Gasmasque (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, younger me went a bit extreme with citing every new claim she saw. Went ahead and fixed this. RenaMoonn (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having finished reading all cited sources (particularly the supplemental information for source two) I do worry about this article's comprehensiveness. Some information I would consider quite important is not currently mentioned, and if included could flesh out the discovery, description, and a paleoenvironment section a bit. I've listed these from my notes in no particular order of importance, feel free to correct me if any of these have actually been added:

• The only Mesozoic velvet worm described (source one, source two)
• The only known definitive crown-group velvet worm fossil (source two, source three, source four)
• A terrestrial animal (source one)
• Lived in a tropical environment (source one)
• Largest complete specimen was approximately 26 mm in length (source two supplemental; size is not currently mentioned)
• The body was colored uniform brown, with a lighter underbelly (source two supp.; color is not currently mentioned)
• The holotype is poorly preserved and incomplete (source two and supp.)
• The described topotypes include two adults and a very small (5 mm) juvenile (source two and supp.)
• Holotype is in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History (source one; specimen is already named as AMNH in the article, but the meaning of the abbreviation could be clarified)
• One topotype specimen is preserved in association with plants and arthropods (source two supp.)
• Two topotypes are part of the collection of the Three Gorges Entomological Institute, while one is now in the private collection of Zezhao Zheng (source two supp.; Zheng's name may best be left unmentioned, it probably isn't needed)

I also have some additional comments and corrections. Some of these regard accuracy, while some are just my pedantic wording nitpicks. Do correct me if I've misinterpreted anything from the texts and the article is more correct:

• In the lead it is probably better to say “what is now Myanmar’s Kachin State”, since Myanmar did not exist when this taxon lived and whatnot.
• Like the short description, the opening sentence for the lead may be best written without mentioning Peripatidae. Since the taxon’s classification as a peripatid is noted later in the lead paragraph anyway this would also be ideal to avoid duplicating information.
• Only the incomplete BU-001468 is considered “exceptionally preserved”, all three other described specimens are considered poorly preserved in source two or its supplementary material. “Some specimens” implies it is more than the one, and the preservation of the undescribed specimens does not seem to be noted anywhere.
• Saying “many specimens” preserve minute details may not be ideal. The mode of preservation in three of the four described specimens is noted as poor, and the number of undescribed specimens seems unknown. Would it not be better to say “Due to being encased in amber, Cretoperipatus specimens…” instead of implying any specific many or few?
• When mentioning that the holotype was misinterpreted it is probably better to say specifically which authors claimed this, maybe "Oliviera and coauthors suggested that..." rather than just saying “the original describers probably mistook the holotype’s back with its front”. I also think this is an extremely important piece of information about the animal, and should be mentioned higher up in the discovery or description section.
• Some other editors dislike the use of “et al.” in Wiki articles like that in the classification section. I am neutral on the issue, but if consulting another editor this may come up again.
• Life reconstruction needs removal or replacing, it was not blue

Sorry if this reply seems a bit more negative. I do think that with a few adjustments and additions the article should pass GA, especially since you've been very active in responding to feedback and adding to the article. As for the description section issue you brought up, I think we should keep all discussion about the article on-site. I would be glad to friend you on Discord to coordinate any future efforts, though. Gasmasque (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on-hold for the next seven days. There are several issues, including missing information about the taxon's anatomy (size and paleocolor) and environment (terrestriality, Burmese amber more broadly) that are provided in the cited sources and make me question criterion 3, overly technical text in the short description and description section, an inaccurate life restoration, and potentially attribution concerns. I don't think any of this should be too difficult to include or adjust besides potentially the technicality of the description(?), and the article is otherwise reasonably well-written, verifiable, neutral, stable, and exempt from well-illustrated due to lack of compatibly licensed images. Gasmasque (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the article has stalled for the last five days, and there are still several issues that aren't addressed. Are you still interested in working on the page, or has something else come up? I'm just leaving this message here as a reminder as the article is currently on-hold. Gasmasque (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not working on things, I've just been really busy and had a rough week. I downloaded the supplementary material and am gonna start adding changes later today RenaMoonn (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, I've updated the reconstruction. Let me know if theres issues. Prehistorica CM (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, I didn't realize you were interested in updating the reconstruction. I see no issues with the new one, so unless Rena has objections I would consider that issue resolved! Gasmasque (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I can think of is that the coloration is slightly off. Source 2's supplementary section described Cretoperipatus as being brown with a lighter underbelly. Because of this, Cretoperipatus is basically Typhloperipatus but with well developed eyes. We've finally got images of the animal after 110ish years, so a good reference would be Figure 6 of this paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00222933.2025.2483434 I can also just DM you the photos on Discord since I already have them all.

Hopefully this isn't too hard (though if it is, you don't have to do it). Also feel free to take your time.

That's it! RenaMoonn (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had taken an unseasonable amount of time before leaving my first feedback on this article, and because you're still actively contributing, I am more than happy to extend the time the review is on-hold. If you're busy elsewhere I entirely understand, as long as you can expand the newly created "paleobiology and paleoenvironment" section and retool the description and lead sections within the next week or so. The material added to the classification section looks good and addresses a lot of the concerns I had about comprehensiveness, which just leaves some details about animal's physical description and (optionally) the whereabouts of the specimens left to add. And again, thanks to Prehistorica the page has a usable (and very pretty) taxobox image. I'll do some minor grammar tweaks to the article over the course of today, feel free to revert any of those you disagree with. Thank you for being open to my criticisms, you've been great to work with! Gasmasque (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've finished adding to the article, I'd be glad to look over it a final time. Let me know when you're done making changes. Gasmasque (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got a few more additions to the dermal papillae, trunk, and lobopod sections I gotta make (they're almost all accessory papillae related). Shouldn't take me more than a few days to finish, but once I'm done, I'll let you know! RenaMoonn (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've finished making changes. You can do the final lookover now RenaMoonn (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and made a couple of minor tweaks to grammar, and fixed minor issues like the genus name being un-italicized, an additional space being added in the lead, and some overlinking. My only additional feedback would be for you to clarify in the lead that Cretoperipatus is a monotypic genus and its only species is C. burmicus, to indicate when the inline citations are referring to supplemental material (for example, using an Rp template like that in paragraph 2 the Discovery and naming section), and to merge the "Slime papillae" subsection into another subsection, as such short paragraphs do not warrant subheadings per MOS. Those are minor points, and I do not think they impact the overall GA evaluation, but I would prefer to see these changes made.

All of my previous concerns about comprehensiveness, readability and structure have been resolved and the taxobox illustration now in-use is acceptable, although if you disagree because of the coloration potentially being too reddish you may choose to remove it. I don't personally see any issues with your use of et al. to refer to multiple authors, and I don't think the detailed short description is of much consequence, so nothing strikes me as problematic even if somewhat against convention. My previous concerns with too-close paraphrasing have been addressed and corrected, and there is no indication of copyright violation. Great work on the article, I'm going to go through and do another final check and then hopefully promote. Gasmasque (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

made the minor edits, I am READY for the final verdict RenaMoonn (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes! I'm passing the article now that I've double checked it and read through the newly added sources, everything is good to go! Gasmasque (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]