Talk:Ambulocetus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 21:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The use of is in the current sentence just feels really off to me. Either say that it is a genus, or say that it was an early amphibious cetacean, as it's highly extinct.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• " Ambulocetus is thought to have swum much like a modern river otters" - Drop the "a"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discovery

• What year were the remains first unearthed in?

I think he discovered an announced it the same year (1994)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• " the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" - Now, I could be wrong on this, because my paleontology knowledge mostly comes from books I bought at a library discard sale, and these are from the 1990s, but isn't Pakicetus at least thought by some to have been semiaquatic to some extent? Out Pakicetus article calls it amphibious, which I'm not really convinced is the greatest assessment of scholarly consensus, but I'm not sure if fully terrestrial is the best summary of Pakicetus opinions, either.

It's generally regarded as terrestrial, but of course it is an extinct whale and we don't know everything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Head

• Hypoglossal canal is overlinked

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The end of the snout of Ambulocetus is missing," - Not wild about this phrasing. Obviously, this is based on the holotype, and Ambulocetus was more than just the holotype before its extinction, so it's not great phrasing to project the holotype onto all individuals here

changed to "of the holotype"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link Rodhocetus, or at least gloss what type of critter it was.

like Basilosaurus it was another archaeocete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Vertebrae

• "The holotype preserved 7 neck vertebrae" - MOS:NUMERALS

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The holotype preserved 7 neck vertebrae" - It's unclear if you're meaning here that that it probably only had seven, or if only seven were recovered, and there's no telling how many there truly were.
• With the lumbar and sacral vertebrae, it seems implied that it is known how many of those it had. Is that assumption correct?

I'm not sure so I like to leave these numbers sort of vague. I'd assume that those series are completely preserved because I don't see an indication that they're not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The cortical bone (the outermost layer) is thickest at the neck of the rib (between the joint and the costal cartilage), at max 1 mm (0.039 in), and are filled with spongy bone" - The subject of are appears to be the cortical bone, which is the wrong case for are, as it is singular. I'm also not convinced that the present tense is great here, as the spongy bone has since been fossilized, and is no longer really spongy bone.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Only 5 of the tail vertebrae are preserved" - MOS:NUMERALS

done

Limbs

• "The hand had 5 widely spaced digits" - MOS:NUMERALS

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The fifth digit slightly shorter much less robust than the fourth" - This sentence lacks a verb

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Diet

• "nd the fact that both the premolars and molars were both involved in crushing indicates" - Can you find a way to rephrase this so that both doesn't pop up twice?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "drowning it or trashing it around" - Would you possibly mean thrashing, not trashing?

yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

See also

• I'm unconvinced that the Ice Hunt link really brings anything here, especially since the linked information about Ice Hunt doesn't mention Ambulocetus

Ambulocetus is very central to the plot   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• All look reliable, and the formatting is acceptable. There's a lot of Thewissen in there, but it's unavoidable, because he was involved in the discovery of the fossil matter for this species. It's perfectly fine at this level, given the circumstances, but an FAC may challenge it.

Thewissen is almost always involved when it comes to Ambulocetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Image licensing is acceptable. Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: is there anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)