Talk:Janjucetus

What's In A Name?

Name etymology is generally included in the foremost paragraph. So far as I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.62.232 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the following section. It is partly off-topic and I simply don't understand much of it or the reference. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Janjucetus is Jan Juc + Latin cetus ‘whale’, the bones of which were found on the beach area formerly called Jan Juc in Victoria, Australia, but Jan Juc is now called Bellbrae ('Bell’s hillside near a river'). Jan Juc is believed to be a Wathaurung Aboriginal term meaning ‘iron-bark tree’ or ‘forest of ironbarks’. The term also links ironbark trees with the dead; for example, the Tjuraaltja clan made sepulchres in the trees for entombing deceased clans people.

<ref>Louis N. Lane, compiler: History: with some echoes of a lost language (including “AbEng – An Aboriginese-English Lexicon” of 240 pages focusing just on the Wathaurung people), Geelong, Victoria, (1999) 2001, Kardinia Prehistory Society, Geelong Heritage Centre; the work can be found listed in the Geelong Heritage Centre’s Louis Lane Collection at [1] and represents a compilation by Louis Lane of over 30 years from ethnographic literature. This information was contributed by staff at the Geelong Heritage Centre, 20 February 2013.</ref>

GA Review

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

I'll give this a go. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead: "As other baleen whales": perhaps "Like ..."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead: "It was found" ... we don't know yet that there is only 1 specimen. "The only known specimen was found" would do, for example.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy: I believe that's a phylogenetic tree, not a cladogram.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't see any good reason why first image "Restoration of Janjucetus" is to the left of a section heading. Maybe shift it down a bit.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to have two images showing alternative restorations, but not ideal that they both have the same caption. I think we should at least have author and date for each, and preferably a bit of discussion in both the text and the captions of what the science was that the images are trying to portray.

they are both by the same artist, the only real difference between the two is the perspective and the color scheme   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The fins do seem differently proportioned but never mind.

Wikilink to "ultrasonic" is a dab page.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A baleenless baleen whale, gee. Maybe it'd be best to say "mysticete" a bit more often.

mysticete is a scary-looking word   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a science article, you know. We're allowed to say lengthy graecolatinate words like "photophosphorylation" if we need to.

"given the proliferation of baleen-bearing baleen whales": do you mean "the later proliferation"?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Figure "Comparison of teeth": these seem to be from 3-D computer models based on scans? I think a little more explanation in the caption might be in order.

such as?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Teeth "were situated on the top of the head". Perhaps that needs rewording.

better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"upper teeth were more widely spaced apart than the lower teeth": so how did that work then? One might have guessed the teeth would interleave.

maybe, it kinda stops there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then we can't do much. If the teeth resemble anything it's those of fossil sharks.

The ISSNs in (some of) the refs can be dropped as utterly useless.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Nature News ref should have a full date, in the absence of volume and page numbers.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)