Talk:Cratoraricrus

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

Nominator: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 17 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) 18:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Looks good so far - my suggestions are mostly minor. I'll do the spot check after you get a chance to add page numbers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• The third sentence of the lead is very long and has five clauses. It should be split or rewritten.

 Done

• If available, add the timeframe (in mya)

It does not appear that the Nova Olinda Member has been precisely dated. I'm just tacking this on here because it's related to the lead, but I thought it was worth mentioning that I went ahead and unlinked "extinct" in the first sentence (not usually linked in paleontology articles; I must've done it without thinking).

Discovery and naming

• I would move the image to the left, as it currently gets pushed down below the infobox.

Preview it and see what you think. I think this might be the lesser of two evils because having it on the left causes it to interact weirdly with the heading below (there's some rather distracting whitespace in a location where the reader's eye is naturally drawn). I might just leave it up to you if you do think it's worth it.

I think it's better left, even if some whitespace is required to clear the heading. (Testing it out, it doesn't add any whitespace on my laptop with default appearance, though it does with my Monobook setting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done

• Add alt text for images - not required for GA, but highly encouraged for accessibility.

Alt text has been added. I hope my descriptions were sufficient. I was tempted to describe the orthopteran as "resembling a dragonfly", but I suppose that might not be helpful to those with severe vision impairment.

• The final sentence should be moved to the next section, as it is not about discovery or naming.

 Done

Description

• A bit of explanation of what "sternal grooves" are would be good. On the sternum?

Is linking Sternum (arthropod anatomy) sufficient? I know links aren't really supposed to replace in-text explanations but there's already three glosses in that sentence alone and the arthropod sternum seems reasonably analogous (in position) to the bone in humans that a reader's best inference about its meaning would probably be correct.

I think that's fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to specify that ultimate legs and forcipules are unique to centipedes, though I would keep the parenthetical explaining what forcipules are.

Removed the specification of forcipules being unique to centipedes. Are you suggesting I remove the explanation about ultimate legs altogether? They are pretty tough to define in a few words and I would imagine one of those words would have to be "centipede" no matter what.

Yes, I think the link is sufficient. If you think an explanation is needed, modified rear legs is probably sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The explanation has been removed.

Classification

• The second half of the second sentence is very confusing. I would split it into a second sentence and simplify it to something like An additional instance of fossil scolopendrid remains was found by 2025, though Velocipede was listed as incertae sedis.

The wording has been changed up some, though not exactly to what you suggested. "By 2025" seems overly cryptic so I wanted to keep the mention of the catalog.

Why do we need details about the Burmese discovery? It doesn't really seem relevant here other than being a third Mesozoic fossil scolopendrid. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Burmese amber is pretty significant in the context of invertebrate paleontology; it's known for having exceptionally diverse and well-preserved arthropod (and other small animal) remains. It's probably the first place someone familiar with this topic would expect to find the remains of a Cretaceous centipede. Maybe not directly related to Cratoraricrus itself, but it seems worth a mention (and to be clear, "Burmese amber" in this sense is a specific collection of Cretaceous-aged amber from the Hukawng Valley in Myanmar, not just any old amber from the country). — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• The last sentence is worthwhile having in the article, but it might go better in the next section.

It's not really related to paleoecology. I think the only real options are keeping it where it is or removing it altogether.

Paleoecology

• I don't think we need a history of studies about the formation. It can be simplified to something like The paleoenvironmental of the Crato Formation has been variously interpreted as a saline lake, a marine environment, and a freshwater environment subject to frequent hypersaline and alkaline conditions.

 Done

References

• No need for an access date for Wilson

Removed

• I would reduce the multiple image to four images - I don't see a need for four hemipterans

There were three, but point taken. Cut back to four images total.

I'm so good at counting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Add page number(s) for each use of citations with pagination, either with {{rp}} or Harvard-style referencing. I'll do a spot check after that's done.

Refs 2, 4, and 7 are each only used once and only one page is actually needed to support their respective information (for ref 7 I only used the abstract), so I changed the page ranges to just the individual pages needed. Wilson, 2003, is multiple pages but quite short (just five total). Are page numbers necessary here? Perhaps slightly beneficial but are they really needed for GA?

Not needed for GA - like I said up top, I will make suggestions beyond the GA criteria, but will only pass/fail on the criteria. I do think it's best to have the main citation be the whole page range (to make the full source easier to obtain, such as if requesting a copy from a library) and then designate the specific page in the text (to make it easier to find a specific fact in the source). But again, I won't insist on that for GA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the full page ranges of the three sources I mentioned above and added {{rp}}. I will stand by not numbering ref 1 because of its length and the fact that it is sometimes used for information found across multiple pages. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: I'm sorry to be persnickety, but spot checking has made me conclude that adding exact pagination for the remaining sources (1, 5, and 6) is necessary to meet criterion 2b, for several reasons:

• There are issues with searching text inside Wilson. For example, try searching for "Urs" to verify the collector's name - it won't find it. I almost indicated that as failing verification until I took a closer look.
• Sources 5 and 6 are rather longer (12 and 29 pages) so that argument about length is not really true.
• The discovery and description sections are difficult to verify because the information comes from multiple places within the source, but there is currently only one citation per paragraph - so even if you find one item in the source, it doesn't allow you to verify the others.

I understand your objections, but the particular circumstances of this article means the pagination is important for me to be able to even do the spot check. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This is 100% GACN. It is not difficult for the reader or anyone else to look through five pages (and I would say not even twelve or twenty-nine) to verify any given claim. I've never had a reviewer demand pages numbers except when the source was perhaps dozens or even hundreds of pages long, not five. However, I'll suck it up and make my work considerably harder to make yours slightly easier. Give me a few days. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: I'm sorry this is frustrating to you, and I understand that it's extra work, but it's far less work for you than it would be for me to read 36 pages of journal articles on a subject I have no particular expertise in. I have enough background that I can muddle through a single page to verify a claim, but not enough to find the relevant information out of full articles. You've done as many GA reviews as I am, so I'm sure you know how much work a spot check can entail if you're not familiar with the source material.

GACN says to avoid Requiring page numbers where these are not essential; given the reasons I named above, I believe page numbers are essential here. If you prefer, I can request a second opinion or ask at the noticeboard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You said it wasn't possible to search within the text for the first source but I can assure you it is for the other two. I've never had problems doing a spot check by just using the internal search feature. Regardless, you don't have to do anything; I'll get to it. — An anonymous username, not my real name 12:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished the miserable and completely unnecessary task of providing page numbers for every single reference. No reviewer has ever demanded this of me before and I hope it doesn't happen again. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found it miserable. I appreciate it, and I'm sure readers will as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

This table lists 10 random passages from throughout the article (50.0% of 20 total passages). These passages contain 11 inline citations (47.8% of 23 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script.

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The type species was named Cratoraricrus oberlii, with the genus name in reference to the Early Cretaceous Brazilian Crato Formation, where the remains were found, and the Latin words rar (lit. 'thin') and crus (lit. 'leg').
2	a	Wilson 2003, p. 74.
The specific epithet was in honor of its collector, Urs Oberli.
3	a	Wilson 2003, p. 75.
The type specimen of Cratoraricrus oberlii was noted for its bisegmented tarsi (the furthest part of the leg from the body), paramedian (near the middle of the body) sternal grooves, and slim ultimate legs.
4		Wilson 2003, pp. 73–74.			Paraphrasing is a bit close, but there might not be a lot to be done about that.
Each leg possesses six podomeres (segments), of which only three are preserved for the ultimate legs.
5		Wilson 2003, pp. 74–75.
Wilson placed Cratoraricrus in the family Scolopendridae within the order Scolopendromorpha.
1	d	Wilson 2003, p. 73.
In 2006, Cratoraricrus oberlii was reported to be one of only two scolopendrid centipede species known from the Mesozoic (along with Velocipede betimari) and the better understood of the two.
6		Edgecombe & Giribet 2007, p. 163.
The paleoenvironment of the Crato Formation as been variously interpreted as a saline lake, a marine environment, and a freshwater environment subject to frequent hypersaline and alkaline conditions.
9		Warren et al. 2017, p. 4.
10	a	Varejão et al. 2021, p. 3.
while the Nova Olinda Member has been suggested to be latest Aptian to early Albian in age.
1	f	Wilson 2003, p. 73.
Other arthropods include the centipedes Velocipede and Fulmenocursor; many winged insects; and rarely spiders, whip spiders, whip scorpions, scorpions, and a japygid (a member of the order Diplura of non-insect hexapods).
1	g	Wilson 2003, p. 73.
Plants include angiosperms, ferns, and gymnosperms, and there is evidence of a wide range of interactions between plants and insects, including insect galls, feeding along the leaf margin, leaf mining, oviposition, and skeletonization (stripping away of most of the leaf).
13		Filho et al. 2019, p. 926.

Overall

@Pi.1415926535: I have replied to all comments (I had initially intended to just do a couple here and there, but I ended up working my way through the whole list). Let me know what you think about page numbers for ref 1. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Looking good - see my replies above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I have replied to outstanding comments. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Happy to pass now. I'm sorry that this review was a frustrating experience for you; I wish you best of luck in your editing and hope that any future times we encounter each other are more pleasant. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Cretaceous centipede Cratoraricrus has been described as indistinguishable from modern centipedes?

• Source: "All of the known Mesozoic centipedes, including C. oberlii, are morphologically indistinguishable from extant centipedes." ()

• • ALT1: ... that Cratoraricrus is a rare example of a fossilized centipede? Source: "Centipedes are extremely rare in the fossil record, with only a handful of specimens known from localities other than Tertiary amber deposits." ()
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/C. Mortimer Wiske

Improved to Good Article status by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

— An anonymous username, not my real name 20:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. The article was recently promoted to GA (March 25) and has no copyright issues picked up by Earwig. QPQ has been completed already. I think either hook could work. -- ZooBlazer 20:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)