Talk:Zygophyseter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good with the ecology section now, so I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• "labelled "MAUL 229/1," Why is the comma inside the quotation marks? Also, why are there quotation marks?

I removed the quotation marks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• "almost complete male skeleton" How is it known to be a male?

it just says “gender masculine”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's just the gender of the Latin name, not the specimen (note it is mentioned in the etymology section)... The sex of the specimen isn't mentioned anywhere, and if it could be deducted, it would be pretty significant and explained in detail. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering why it said “gender” instead of “sex.” fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• How many specimens are known?

just the one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• It would probably be good to cover its discovery before the meaning of the names, for chronological flow.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• That prehistoric wildlife link seems a bit dubious, especially since it doesn't seem to offer additional information.

it’s a simpler summary of the article essentially   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is why it should be removed. I thought I had expurgated this hellhole of a site from Wikipedia? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean as far's I know everything it says is factually correct, it just says it in easier English than Wikipedia can   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, that's what your intro section is for, to cover all the points of the article in less detail. So if that is done properly, you won't even need that link. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then what's even the point of the External links section other than an advertisement to buy some book or journal subscription?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To link content that we can't reproduce here directly. That could be videos or interactive websites, or articles that cover issues beyond the scope of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well in that case I removed the summary links   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is confusing that you have "raptors" in blue in the cladogram, makes it look like a link. Would be better to use another colour, though red would of course also be problematic. Or at least a kind of blue that doesn't look like a link.

I just bolded it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• "and the term physeter refers to the type genus of the family Physeteridae." You could mention this is the genus of the modern sperm whale.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "This group is characterized by having large, functional teeth on both the upper and lower jaw" If it's in the source, you could state modern sperm whales don't have teeth in the upper jaw.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "representing various primitive sperm whales" Add "sperm whale species".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "a paraphyletic group" Define.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "A characteristic of raptors, it had buccal exostoses" Best to refer to the subject by name at the beginning of a section.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "These may have reduced in kogiids" Been reduced.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Like in modern sperm whales, this species had a" The article is placed at the genus level, so probably best to refer to it as such, if not by genus name.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• You have both meter and metre in your measurements, seems you should stick to the former here.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Likewise, it would be best to refer to the subject as Zygophyseter rather than Z. varolai in most cases.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "modern sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)" You should move the binomial name to first mention in the article body, not all the way down here.

oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "the transverse processes (the diagonal projections from a vertebral centrum) of the thoracic vertebrae was" You go from plural to singular.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "and so it probably swam faster" The "and" is clunky.

it reads fine on my end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Many fish remains of teleost fish" Double fish is redundant. You can just say teleosts.

most people don't know what a teleost is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "from the Tortonian Age" That lived during might sound better.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think a few more distinct features of the animal could be mentioned in the intro, such as the beak.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The zygomatic bone (cheekbone) projects anteriorly, indicating it had a beak, which featured an abrupt narrowing; this may have allowed it to clamp down on prey more effectively." No source.

things kept getting shuffled around, readded   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me now. I think this structure could be good for future articles about similar animals. But for an article where more is known about the possible behaviour and functions of an animal, there should be a dedicated paleobiology section about that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)