Talk:Alopias palatasi

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "is an extinct species of giant thresher shark" if you say it's giant, it's best to follow it up with how giant it was   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mentioned tooth size in following sentence.

I think it would be better to say it's comparable in size to the great white shark, and in the body you should probably put the average size of the great white shark and (if you want) a picture of the great white considering they have a similar body outline   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Done both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrophyseter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• "consists of deep root lobes that do not extend beyond the shoulders of the crown and a strongly arched base" so did the lobes go in an upward direction? Why would anything on the root surpass the crown?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Cut.
• Did they suggest similar ecological roles between this and the great white?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They only suggested similar body plans based on converging dentition. Do you think it would be too much of a stretch to suggest similar ecological roles?

Yeah, we shouldn't stretch anything that the authors didn't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• And that's everything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't get what you are meaning here. Is this a followup to the above comment?
• You should say the name of the holotype and what it comprises, and paratypes if there are any   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
• It's already implied, but you should directly say the species epithet's in honor of Palatas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Reading the study, it doesn't say anything about a symbiotic relationship, it just says "A. palatasi teeth are typically found comingled with the teeth of the giant otodontid Carcharocles chubutensis, a species well represented in the Burdigalian to Langhian and possibly into the Serravallian"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • When I wrote the article I thought that comingling would imply a symbiotic relationship. If that's an unreliable stretch, then cut.

We shouldn't really stretch information. It's okay to explain inferences the author made in greater detail s/he didn't go into, but only if it's clear that's the direction the author was going in. There doesn't seem to be indication that they thought the two sharks had a symbiotic relationship   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are you sure A. grandis is a synonym? You said it is only mentioned in 1 scientific paper, so therefore it shouldn't have any formal synonyms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's what was referred to by fossil collectors/amateurs along with Trigonotodus serratus, but it seems that nobody ever mentioned anything in scientific literature until Kent and Ward. Cut.

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fossil tooth of Alopias palatasi

• ... that unlike its congeneric relatives, the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is hypothesized to have lacked elongated tails and instead looked more similar to the great white shark? Source: [1] "It is unlikely that the new giant thresher shark possessed an elongated dorsal tail lobe seen in the Recent species. As the dentition is converging on a great white shark and its size was similar or larger, it is reasonable to suppose that the body outline was similar."
  • ALT1:... that the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is the only one of its kind to possess serrated teeth? Source: [2] "Despite extensive research on fossil elasmobranchs in this area, one species of large thresher shark (family Alopiidae) with distinctively serrated teeth has not been previously named."
  • ALT2:... that despite the large attention given to it by the amateur collectors and dealers, discoveries of fossils from a new species of extinct giant thresher shark now known as Alopias palatasi were ignored by scientific literature for over a decade until one was donated to a paleontologist? Source [3] "Curiously, these teeth were well known by amateur collectors and fossil dealers but had no mention in the scientific literature"

Improved to Good Article status by Macrophyseter (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

• Article has been reviewed as a good article, so no problem there. Article was nominated within a week of being promoted to GA status. This seems to be the nominator's first DYK nomination so no past review on nominator's part per WP:QPQ. Hooks are backed up by citations, long and interesting enough. Personally I favor the second hook as it seems to be the most concise, but I have no real problem with any of the three. Perhaps another editor could weigh in on that. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)