Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megalodon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2017 [1].

---

Megalodon

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very very large shark that went extinct a really really long time ago. It also got to GA a really very long time ago in 2008, and now I'm here to see it through FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pbsouthwood

Image licenses:

• File:Megalodon shark jaws museum of natural history 068.jpg - looks OK
• File:Stenoshark.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon tooth with great white sharks teeth-3-2.jpg - looks OK
• File:White shark.jpg - looks OK
• File:FMIB 45542 Cetorhinus maximus.jpeg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon scale.svg - looks OK
• File:Carcharodon megalodon.jpg - looks OK

• Source link doesn't appear to have original publication - when/where was this first published?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Megalodon.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon teeth.jpg - looks OK (dead link to source)
• File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon skeleton.jpg - looks OK
• File:Giant white shark coprolite (Miocene; coastal waters of South Carolina, USA).jpg - looks OK
• File:Meg bitten cetacean vertebra.jpg - not found at source url, page may have changed. OTRS ticket on file, assuming OK
• File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg - source archived, I don't know how to check licensing for this one.
• File:Physeteroidea - Livyatan melvillei.JPG - looks OK
• File:VMNH megalodon.jpg - looks OK. source checked, OTRS ticket on file.
• File:Megalodon teeth.png - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
• File:Orca pod southern residents.jpg - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
• File:Megbook.jpg - looks OK, but I am not expert on fair use.

File:Megbook.jpg and File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg should be checked by someone more expert. I am satisfied with the others. These two are probably OK too but I am not sure. Nikkimaria, perhaps you would be kind enough to check them. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The map appears to be pretty much identical to the source site, which is problematic given this statement. The book cover currently has no fair-use rationale for this page and can't be used here without one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the book image, but I'm not too sure what to do with the map. It says you can use a modified version of the map, and the one on here is covered in dots, so that seems to check out. It says it can only be used as a resource, just not point-blank copy/pasted onto a page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg appears to be an unmodified version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I switched it out with File:Land shallow topo 2048.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK to me · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• All images have alt text. I think some could be improved. I will get back to this for details or make the suggested changes myself if you are happy with that. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I have made some alt text copyedits, and plan to do more. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them.

  Done with alt-text. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• External links look OK on Checklinks. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect check looks OK on Rdcheck. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sections:

Lead

• Infobox gives four synonyms as C. spp. Are they all Carcharocles spp? Phylogeny section appears to suggest that other synonyms exist.

Synonyms of Carcharocles sure, but not synonyms of megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. If the accepted procedure is to list only species synonyms in the infobox, no problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that this has been changed. Looks OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• First paragraph suggested that Megalodon:The Monster Shark Lives is a documentary. I changed it. No action required · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• competing figures still exist as to when it evolved - What are Competing figures?

disagreement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the expression, is it standard or common usage in paleontology? I think it may be a bit obscure for the average reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is the visible V-shaped neck on the teeth?

the neck of the tooth is where the root meets the crown   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny

• in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four sharks Are these four sharks those which are now assigned to Carcharocles? If so it would be clearer to mention it.

I switched it to "those four sharks" because I figure it'd be confusing saying "the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four Carcharocles sharks"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External appearance

• This section seems excessively tentative. It suggests that the shark resembled at least four rather different extant species. It may be that there are different opinions as to which shark it most closely resembles, in which case this should be specifically mentioned, if possible mentioning the specific attributes that are hypothesized to match each of the species.

there’re three different ideas as to what it really looked like, so they’re split into three different paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the section should lead with a mention that opinions differ, and possibly mention who holds which opinion.

I just opened the paragraphs with "one idea is..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is better. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• However, since sand tiger sharks are displacement swimmers, and use drag to propel themselves; they are required to move around three or four times their own weight in water on each tail stroke. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Explain or link "displacement swimmer", explain how drag can propel anything, as it seems a contradiction in terms.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph is still incomprehensible to me, and is not linked to anything that explains it. I am not a specialist on animal swimming, but I am educated in basic hydrodynamics and have probably a better than average layman's knowledge of marine biology, so if I don't get it, I suspect that the majority of readers also won't get it. In this context does "own weight in water" mean an amount of water weighing as much as the shark independent of immersion medium, or an amount of water weighing as much as the apparent weight of the shark when immersed in water? I expect the latter, but then some indication of the apparent weight is needed, as for a neutrally buoyant shark this would be zero. If the former, that is a huge mass of water, and the reason escapes me. Axial swimming is not explained in the article and does not appear to be explained anywhere else on Wikipedia. A footnote may be useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"axial swimmers that flex their body for propulsion"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"own weight in water" means in the most literal sense possible "own weight in water"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The source specifies own mass, which is unambiguous. Weight in water is ambiguous as it can mean apparent weight. Own weight of water is less ambiguous.

I read the source. It also fails to explain the meaning of axial swimming and the requirement to displace a large mass of water by drag adequately. I also did a little research into fish locomotion, and found a resource which explains the differences between body forms optimised for acceleration, maneuverability and sustained high speed. I think Kent is trying to say that the sand tiger is optimised for acceleration and possibly maneuverability, but is an inefficient form for sustained high cruising speeds, which tends to be represented by less flexible bodies and high aspect ratio caudal fins, and preferably near neutral buoyancy to minimise induced drag. I am going to look for a suitable wikilink, but may have to resort to a redlink. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is clearer to me. If you are satisfied that that is the intended meaning of the source I am happy with it. OK for me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "pig-eyed appearance" intended to mean in this context?

the source said “pig-eyed” which means popping out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I accept that the source said "pig-eyed". I checked, and it is there, but I could not access adjacent text to see what meaning they intended. Nevertheless, I do not get a clear understanding from the expression as used in the article, and question its usefulness as a description on that account. I found definitions for pig-eyed in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which both say "small, deep-set eyes", quite the opposite of "popping out". I think we can reasonably assume that the authors meant small, deep-set eyes, and as the meaning is clearly not obvious, suggest that the article is changed to clarify. There is no entry in Wiktionary. Either reword or a footnote would do.

I just appendaged an explainer on the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Anatomy

• Megalodon is represented in the fossil record by teeth, vertebral centra, and coprolite. Only one coprolite? If so, "a coprolite". If more than one, use plural form.

Teeth and bite forces

• What are post-cranial generated forces? Link would be sufficient.

I just removed “post-cranial”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Range and habitat

• Fossil remains show a trend for specimens to be larger on average in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, with mean lengths of 11.6 and 9.6 meters (38 and 31 ft), respectively; and in the Pacific more so than the Atlantic 10.9 and 9.5 meters (36 and 31 ft) respectively. The section in italics is not clear. Do the 10.9 and 9.5 meters refer to mean lengths in the Pacific and Atlantic (both hemispheres) repectively, or to mean lengths in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere in one of these oceans?

11.6 and 9.6 metres mean length for the southern and northern hemispheres respectively; and 10.9 and 9.5 metres for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans respectively. The semicolon is there to separate the two   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To what does "more so" refer? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what it sounds like? I use that every day to mean "a quantity more than..." (and on occasion "more like..." depending on the context, but you get the idea)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an explanation of the meaning, and is what I would expect it to mean. What I asked was what concept in the sentence "more so" refers to. Is it "a trend for specimens to be larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern", or just "a trend for specimens to be larger"? In effect I am asking whether the trend for larger in SH vs NH is exaggerated in the Pacific in relation to the Atlantic, or whether the trend for larger mean lengths in the Pacific than the Atlantic is greater than the hemispheric variation. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it myself after referring to source. No further action required if you are OK with the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Prey relationships

• Being an opportunist, it would have gone after small and fish and other sharks given the opportunity. First paragraph of the section states probably an apex predator, so maybe "Also being an opportunist...". In same sentence, "small and fish" makes no sense, but not sure what is intended. "Smaller fish"?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Checked: sample of 10 refs chosen from accessible websites. Some when checking specific content, some arbitrarily selected for no special reason. These checks are for validity only, i.e. the content is supported by the source. No comment on formatting.

• Roesch, B. S. (1998) - OK
• Does Megalodon still live - OK
• Alten, S. (2011) - OK
• Weinstock, J. A. (2014), Partly checked, some pages not accessible, no problem detected.
• Prothero, D. R. (2015), 1 use checked as OK
• Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1983) - OK
• Fitzgerald, Erich (2004) - OK
• Ferretti, Francesco; Boris Worm; Gregory L. Britten; Michael R. Heithaus; Heike K. Lotze1 (2010) - OK
• Renz, Mark (2002), partly checked, pages not fully accessible, samples checked were good. no problem detected.
• Siverson, Mikael; Johan Lindgren; Michael G. Newbrey; Peter Cederström; Todd D. Cook (2013) - OK

Additional checks when researching for clarification.

• Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015) - OK

General criteria

• well-written: Could use some more copyediting. I will do what I can, but don't claim to be very good at it.
  • comprehensibility to the layperson reasonable for the topic. Some clarification needed as detailed above.
• comprehensive: Looks good to me.
• well-researched: Appears adequately cited, and those refs I have checked look good.
• neutral: As far as I can tell. No reasons found to suspect otherwise.
• stable: Looks fine. A lot of constructive work over the last few months and no recent edit wars.
• lead: Seems generally appropriate.
• structure: Also seems appropriate.
• citations: Not checked (yet). Looks OK on a sample check. (see above) I don't do ref formatting reviews, but have not noticed any obvious problems.
• media. See above: reasonable variety of images, appropriate for purpose, licensing issues appear to be fixed.
• length. Seems OK.

A lot has happened to the article since I last read through it carefully. Please ping me when the activity has subsided for a final check. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Well the last edit was over ten days ago, so I think things are kinda settling down now. User:RL0919 said he'll be reviewing prose to make sure sure all the language's not too sciencey and weird, so I might do some minor copyedits should he start up   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, on it. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

latest comments

• "Pig eyed" still does not add value for me, as it must be followed by an explanation to clarify, which would be just as effective without the original epithet. I will not oppose on this point, just saying.
• "Axial swimmers" applies to both sand tigers and great whites, and does not distinguish between the two. It basically means they swim by flexing the body sideways, as opposed to flapping or undulating paired fins. This reference] may help to distinguish between the sub-classes (anguilliform, carangiform and thunniform) of axial swimming of the sharks considered. I am not sure, but think the distinction you need to make is between carangiform and thunniform modes.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• largest fish that has ever lived -> largest fish ever known to have lived.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• However this result appears to be an error within the matrix and the average position for this individual is actually 19.6 meters (64 ft) What does average position for this individual mean in this context?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Megalodon, like contemporaneous sharks, made use of nursery areas to house their young, I think house is a bit of a stretch here. It suggests a more enclosed region than seems probable.

This covers up to end of section 3. My concentration is flagging, so will finish later. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

changed to "birth"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• ..where it is defined as a "hazard" to the era.. Hazard to the era?

it starts off every episode by popping up on the screen "location - x sea," "average temperature - x degrees," and "hazard - ..." and in this episode it said "hazard - Megalodon"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps hazard of the era would make more sense. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. No more issues as far as I can see, moving to support · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Commented to end of article text. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

• Mega shark series is a dab link, so that needs to be fixed.

that was one purpose,it just lists all the movies in the series   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Using a dab like that is a bad idea (it's just going to draw people trying to fix it), so I resolved by creating a Mega Shark (film series) article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• In prey relations, the text is being sandwiched between the two images, so if that could be fixed, it would be great.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More by evening! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna be gone over the weekend to a place where wifi is a foreign concept, so I'll answer any more comments on Monday (or Tuesday)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

wifi at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, completely forgot about it!

• Link naturalist.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• We could have images aligned to the left wherever possible, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location.

it also says the subject should be facing the text, so like the Megalodon painting shows the Megalodon facing the left so the picture should be on the right side so that it faces the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra. Only the great white approached it." Can these two sentences be merged somehow? (maybe "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, with the great white shark's equaling it, with possibly over 200 centra.)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all I have to nitpick on. It is a really very well-written, solid article!Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - A very solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll take a look at this soon. Some initial thoughts below. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seems the image layout could still be improved. In the Taxonomy section, the white shark or tooth image could maybe be moved down, so they don't cluster above, both next to the cladogram.

I moved the great white image down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Under "Teeth and bite force", the Baltimore jaw image seems a bit redundant and crammed-in, could be moved somewhere else.

any ideas where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It is slightly repetitive, so I'd just remove it or put it in the fiction section as decoration or something, but it's also a shame to remove it, so maybe just leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm leaving it as is then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The vertebra under "Prey relationships" could be right aligned so it doesn't cluster with the skull photo.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In fiction" Still seems a way too specific and inadequate title for something that includes info about wrong dating of teeth. This has nothing to do with fiction, and instead of making a new section, it would be better to just make the title more inclusive.

I changed it to "Fiction and sightings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How about "Fiction and misconceptions"? There have been no plausible sightings. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe fiction and cryptozoology? It may also be an idea to make the title even more generic, if we want to include for example non-fictional media appearances or such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Modern era"? "Appearances"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's on the even vaguer end... "Modern era" could mean anything (all research is also modern?), and "sightings" is too uncritical, as it implies it has actually been seen. "Fiction and cryptozoology" is probably the most fitting after all, but if you want to be more inclusive, "cultural significance" could work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The external links and videos should be cleaned up; some of the links don't work, and some are just redundant junk.

changed to "In fiction and cryptozoology"

I removed all the deadlinks and weird ones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative combinations (of genus and species names, such as Carcharodon megalodon) should also be listed in the taxobox synonyms. It is also better to spell out the genus names in the presently listed synonyms, otherwise we won't know what genus each invalid species was assigned to. All synonyms should also redirect here.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there's a problem with listing genera separately from species here, though; Carcharocles contains species other than megalodon, so synonyms of that genus cannot be synonyms of the species C. megalodon itself. So what I meant is you should list full binomials as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason why this restoration isn't used?[2] It doesn't seem like a white shark-like appearance has been ruled out, but it's explicitly mentioned as a possibility under description.

I checked the source and it doesn't actually have a picture of megalodon in it (or at least not one labelled "megalodon"), and it doesn't really have the same style as all the other pictures on the sight which makes me question it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

NobuTamura/Arthur Weasley is a pretty prolific paleoartist on Wikipedia (or at least was), he has done many images in different styles, from pencil to 3D, so there is no question it's his own. Much of his underwater work has the same style, see for example these:[3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find all those pictures on the website specified in the source, but I can’t find Megalodon on the website specified in the source. Also the article’s borderlining on picture overload and there’s already a pretty realistic Megalodon reconstruction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is right here on the site:[6] I agree there is an image overload, but that's mainly because we have way too many repetitive images of teeth (3) and jaws (5). There is only a single restoration of the animal, far from the description/anatomy section where such are usually placed, yet there is still room there (even if you keep the basking shark). It's up to you, but I think the balance could certainly be improved, and it's kind of inappropriate that the reader has to get that far down the article to get an idea how the animal looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is licensed NC. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not on Commons[7], where the artist has uploaded it (and almost all the images on that blog) himself. In fact, he uploaded images for Wikipedia use long before he started his own website, and frequently asked for critique at the dinosaur art review page, so there is no copyright issue here (dual licenses are also fine). FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is a photo of a coprolite, is there any published information about this? Could be interesting.

added to the Anatomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In the past, the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under the family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae)." This is very vaguely worded. Interpretation of what? What kind of interpretation? And what is "in the past"? You could say there has been a historical debate about its generic classification, and that one possibility is now in favour, but the current wording is just too weak.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Some argue" is listed as "weasel words", you could say "some researchers argue". FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am am the author of this section that was changed, I am quite unhappy with this change for a number of reasons.

"There has been some debate regarding the taxonomy of megalodon: some researchers argue that it is of the family Lamnidae, while others argue that it belongs to the family Otodontidae" as compared to the original

"The taxonomic assignment of C. megalodon had been debated for nearly a century, but has recently reached consensus. In the past the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae). However recently, consensus has been reached that the latter view is correct and that megalodon is of the family Otodontidae deriving from sharks of the genus Otodus, and thus should be placed under the genus Carcharocles"

No research for the past five or more years has suggested that Megalodon is part of Lamnidae,the latest papers I can see that suggest this are from the mid 2000's. The wording change seems to imply that there is still an active debate about the taxonomy, when there is not. I made this change to the wording and to the genus in the taxobox to specifically clarify this consensus so I am not sure why you changed it back, it gives a disingenuous impression to the reader. It is also inconsistent with the rest of the article, in the naming section it reads: "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, but it is now considered to be a member of the family Otodontidae, genus Carcharocles". So why only change the introduction? Again, I feel that this edit goes too far to the point of false balance and a misleading impression to the reader. As a point on the genus classification, genera are ultimately arbitrary as the sheer abundance of shark teeth mean that continuity between species of shark can be established. There are many chronospecies of megalodon that have existed since the palaeogene, and don't really effect the familial classification. My original edit might have been a bit too technical and clunky for an introduction, so I am not necessarily bothered by it simply being changed, but that the meaning is changed

Thus I am editing this section to draw comment, If you disagree then please respond to this comment, I am happy for my section to be changed as long as it accurately reflects that there is consensus in the Megalodon family classification.

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's this from 2016 that says "Carcharodon megalodon", but then again the taxobox uses Otodontidae, so I'm torn here. But in any case, fair point, there aren't that many that use that anymore, so I suppose it's kinda safe to say consensus's been reached; but in the rest of the article, should it take sides or should it not be changed from how it is right now? I'm not really sure there's a source that specifically says consensus has been reached, moreover they're just saying how it is in their opinion in an individual journal article or book or whatever   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response, sorry if the previous post came off as rude or cranky. Thanks for the reference, I think I have had similar discussions in the past. For this paper, it is not focused on Megalodon at all, instead as a discussion on the bite force of a living shark species, with Megalodons bite force being used as a reference. The fact that the paper does not mention the discussion of taxonomy of megalodon at all is quite telling, and the reference they cite is a 1996 paper which solely mentions the charcharodon name. Had they discussed the taxonomy at all and said something like "we disagree and treat it as charcharodon megalodon for xyz reasons", it would be worthy of merit, and thus the debate could still be considered active in that case.

However the people who were writing the paper appear to be zoologists and not shark paleontologists. I don't think that they dug particularly deep on the topic, simply due to lack of relevance to the paper, and therefore simply just took the bite force data from the 1996 paper and the genus name without scrutiny.

I think in future when we have disputes like this, only the opinions of current specialists should be considered. A lot of the time what happens is that someone who is not versed in the taxonomic debate does not read the literature carefully (Not that I blame them for this, publish or perish after all), typically doing a paper tangential to the topic (eg biometrics, population statistics etc). and cites older research, these articles are often given as a counter argument in Wikipedia discussions of there still being a debate on taxonomy, where in actual fact they have just blindly followed the taxonomy of the older literature, and don't really have an opinion per se. In these cases I think that references like this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Pretty much every paper that discusses megalodon taxonomy over the past 5 years or more agrees with the Otodontidae classification, so again I think we can consider this case fairly settled.

Now for your main question:

The genus level taxonomy for Megalodon is a complete nightmare. This is for a number of reasons, I will explain briefly.

Megalodons ancestry can be directly traced to a genus of shark called Cretolamna from the cretaceous period. After the K-Pg extinction, the genus split into branches. for most of the Palaeogene, the branch ancestral to megalodon is treated as the genus Otodus, one branch of Otodus becomes much larger in size and is then called Charcharocles, including several predecessor species like C. chubutensis etc, this then leads to Megalodon. As you can see, there are multiple genera covering a continuous sequence over 70 million years or more.

The genus and species concept works really well in in the modern world where you are only looking at a snapshot of time where every species is discrete. It also usually works really well in the fossil record as fossils usually only give a brief window into the past where is therefore also discrete for the most part. However the shear abundance of shark teeth means that continuity between species can be established over staggeringly long periods of time, where the form might change substantially. Which is unusual for vertebrates, but much more common for something like forams. In the fossil record normally eg dinosaurs, species are treated almost as if having spontaneously arisen and then gone extinct due to the incredibly poor resolution of the terrestrial fossil record. This why the problem is intractable, because it is a fundamental problem with the genus/species concept itself. I would personally stick with Charcharocles because this is the genus that the literature uses.

Hope this helps

Again thanks for the response, much appreciated

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• The "etymology" section seems to be too specifically named compared with the content. Perhaps change to "naming", as it is not simply concerned with the meaning of the names.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz gave the shark its" I would rather say "this shark", when I read it first i thought you meant sharks in general as a taxon.

should I do that for every time is says "the shark" in the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it was just ambiguous in that instance. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

changed to "this shark"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• What did Agassiz base the name on?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The "fossils" section seems like a hodgepodge of text that belongs in other sections. Some of it is about evolution, some is descriptive, some is about extinction date. I think this should be spread out to more appropriate sections. Especially the last two paragraphs, which are entirely about morphology, surely belongs under description/anatomy, which is very short anyway.

I moved them to their appropriate sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Relationship between megalodon and the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)" This caption seems misleading, since the cladogram shows the relation with many sharks, not just with the white shark. So it should rather be "including the white shark".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• " In this model, the great white shark", and "In this model, the great white shark is", very repetitive.

I did that to avoid confusion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You could say "according to one scheme" or such one if the times, to avoid repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like some people'd get confused why it suddenly changes from "model" to "scheme" (as if there's a difference) then back to "model"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• You should be consistent in whether you give scientific names after common names or not. Now you mention modern shark species without and some with.

where is the scientific name before the common name?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean some times you mention a species and give its scientific name afterwards, but sometimes you don't. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw one for the mako shark, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention various geological ages without links or dates, but this will mean nothing to many readers, so you should add both.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and predate the transitional Pliocene fossils." What transitional fossils? You have not introduced what these are.

considering great whites evolved 6.5 million years ago (at the very earliest), I removed it. I'm not really sure why the great white shark article says 16 mya considering I can't find anyone else who says that except for the one source they both cite (which I can't access)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Later on in the 1980s" Too informal wording.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "to classify the shark C. auriculatus into". Sounds weird, maybe say "was established to contain C. auriculatus" or some such.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Before this, however, in 1960," Insert sentence overload, you could easily cut "however".

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the phylogeny section, you are inconsistent in whether you mention authors and dates for theories or not.

added 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

• Many chronospecies are mentioned in that section, perhaps mention the word if the sources do.

it's mentioned in the paragraph about chronospecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, got to that part after I added the comment... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "concluded that it is a paraphyly." The term needs to be explained, and the sentence is also wrongly worded. A taxon can be paraphyletic, it cannot be a paraphyly, which denotes the concept itself.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The end of the Phylogeny indicates the species belongs in Otodus, but this is inconsistent with the rest of the article. What is the actual, current consensus, and when has it been established, and by who?

depends who you ask. Some say Carcharodon megalodon, some say Carcharocles megalodon, some say Otodus megalodon, and some say Megaselachus megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention various subgenera, like Otodus (Megaselachus) megalodon, so this term could be mentioned.

I just wikilinked it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "in the 1980s, megalodon was assigned to Carcharocles." and "Before this, in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was", why is it not in chronological order?

it’s less relevant. What’s most important is its relationship to the great white shark (classification at the family level), the rest of the paragraphs talk about its genus placement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "One idea on how megalodon appeared" Seems ambiduous, maybe say "one interpretation of megalodon's physical appearances is that".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Steno shark image takes a lot of vertical space, perhaps add the "upright" parameter.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The jaws may have been blunter and wider than the great white, and it may have had a pig-eyed appearance, in that it had deep-set and small eyes." The fact that these claims are in the same sentence makes it seem that the pig eyes appearance is also in contrast to the great shark. If not, it could be changed, maybe the order.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The section "Anatomy" is incorrectly named; size and external shape are also anatomy. Maybe you mean internal anatomy.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Due to fragmentary remains" and "Due to the lack of well-preserved fossil megalodon skeletons" seems repetitive, and could be consolidated into one.
• The article appears to be in US English, yet you have metres and kilometres throughout.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention informal names, yet overlook the fact that "megalodon" is itself an informal version of the specific name. Perhaps this could be stated, if the sources allow it. It is kind of similar to how thylacine is used.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "were based on a weaker evaluation of the dental homology between megalodon and the great white shark" I have no idea what this means. What is a "weaker evaluation" here?

changed "weaker" to "less-reliable"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure why "Largest known specimens" needs to be a separate section. Both examples are of teeth, so the text would seem to fit better in the section about teeth, which already contains measurements.

so people can find information quickly. Most likely people’re gonna be reading this article to see how big it got   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't they know where to look for it in the "estimations" section? In any case, the manual of style advises against short, single paragraph sections: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."[8] FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

merged with Estimations section

• "at the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), which is part of the Smithsonian Institution" Why is this needed?

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "but this tooth is still designated as intermediate." What does this mean?

intermediate tooth which is what the text before it was talking about, but I removed it since it's redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "hough a reconstruction at USNM approximate" Since you've aleady mentioned the museum, you could say "the USNM".

added "the"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "for its maximum confirmed size and the conservative minimum and maximum body mass of megalodon" Maybe these sizes could be listed here.

already listed in the Statistics section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not for the white shark, whose size is specifically referred to here the only time, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added max size for great white   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and coprolite." I'm pretty sure it should be coprolites in plural.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "this means that most fossil specimens are poorly preserved" In a section about anatomy, that's not really what this means, but rather it is just the reason why.

changed to "consequently"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The jaws would have given it a "pig-eyed" profile." Not sure what the jaws have to do with the eyes, and isn't this repetition anyway?

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Chondrocranium" could be explained, also, the paragraph it appears in ends without citation.

looks like I accidentally deleted that ref a few edits back, fixed.

• "from Gram Formation" From the.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "crutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra; only the great white approached it." Why not moved this to after tyou mention the fossils form Belgium, instead of after mentioning fossils from Denmark?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a mature male, though relative and proportional changes in the skeletal features of megalodon are ontogenetic in nature, in comparison to those of the great white, as they also occur in great white sharks while growing." I'm not sure what you're saying here.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe the sentence under Locations of fossils could say "shown in the map below or some such, to make it clear that the text is connected to the image.

it's said in the caption what it is, and it's the only image in the section, and the only other thing in that section beyond that sentence is the table, and there's {{clear}} so it doesn't bleed into any other sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "its inferred tolerated temperature range is" Was?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "(although the megatooth lineage in general is thought to display a trend of increasing size over time)" What is the "megatooth lineage"?

changed to Carcharocles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The overall modal length has been estimated at 10.5 meters (34 ft), with the length distribution skewed towards larger individuals, suggesting an ecological or competitive advantage for larger body size." Why is this under range/habitat?

it talks about its habitat and its effects on it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "formidable predator", "a formidable feeding apparatus", seems repetitive when used in close succession.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Sharks generally are opportunistic feeders, but scientists propose that megalodon was largely a formidable predator." You could explain why "opportunistic feeder" is in contrast to "formidable predator". Especially since you later say about megalodon "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish", which sems like a contradiction.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a higher trophic level" Could be explained.

does "more predatory" work?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems the term means it is higher in the food chain. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks given the opportunity." Redundant.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks" and "megalodon also would have been piscivorous" this means the same, redundant.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "some species became pack predators" Like which?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "killer sperm whale? You need to link and give a scientific name at first occurrence.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In areas where their ranges seems to overlap" Should be past tense.

fixed

• "The shark probably also had a tendency for cannibalism, much like contemporary sharks." You mention two different species in the preceding sentence, so specify megalodon instead of "the shark". This also avoids repetition of the word "shark".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Fossil remains of some small cetaceans, for example cetotheres, suggest that they were rammed with great force from below before being killed and eaten." How is this evidenced?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "They probably also targeted the flipper in order to immobilize the whale before killing it" and "This suggests that megalodon would immobilize a large whale by ripping apart or biting off its locomotive structures before killing and feeding on it" repetitive.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "preferred nursery sites" You need to explain what a nursery site even is before going into detail about it.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Neonate megalodons" Not sure why such an uncommon word needs to be used here.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Their dietary preferences display an ontogenetic shift:[20]:65 Young megalodon commonly preyed on fish,[26] giant sea turtles,[47] dugongs,[14]:129 and small cetaceans; mature megalodon moved to off-shore areas and consumed large cetaceans.[20]:74–75" This is almost word for word already explained in the Prey relationships section.

the Prey relationships section just says young megalodon ate more fish, but it goes more in-depth what mature megalodon eat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " from Ancient Greek: μέγας (megas) "big, mighty" and ὀδoύς (odoús) "tooth"" All this detail should not be in the intro.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You capitalise as "Megalodon" a few places, which is inaccurate.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The shark has made appearances in several works of fiction, such as the Discovery Channel's Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives." I don't think you need to arbitrarily name one of many media appearances in the intro. Also, it is way too early in the lead, should be at the bottom, if anywhere.

figured I'd put it in the paragraph where it talks about what people are doing with it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But why name one specifically out of several documentaries? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It was notable enough to get its own little paragraph specifically about it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Regarded as one of the largest and most powerful predators in vertebrate history," Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "looked like a stockier version" Likewise only referred to as stocky in the intro, but you also fail to mention the other possible appearances.

fixed, and I think "stocky" and "robust" are effectively synonyms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You could mention in the intro that it is mainly/only known from teeth and vertebrae, which is the reason for the various size estimates.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seems only a couple of points and answers need to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - everything looks good to me now content-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 7: publisher location missing

Which one's that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-typed 7 for 2 – but ref 2 has since been replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 12: There are 21 citations to a page range 1–159. How is someone to check any of these, short of scouring the whole book?

when the page number isn’t specified in the refs, I just put {{rp}} directly after each mention of the ref to specify page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(This is now ref 14) I understand the system now you've explained it, but I wonder if the general reader will. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using it for a while, seems okay to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17: Same problem – this time 31 citations without page references, in a book with at least 517 pages.

Same’s above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 23 and 40: what makes fossilguy.com a high quality reliable source

it’s written by palaeontologists    User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the "about the author" link says: "I am not a professional in Geology or Paleontology... I am just a very interested amateur..." etc, so I wonder. When the site is assembled by an enthusiastic amateur, how can we be sure that it meets the required standards of reliability? For example, is there any evidence that the site's content is mentored by, has been approved by or recommended by universities or other learned bodies? Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well on that About the Author page it also lists him doing something with the Paleontological Society, it says he did an interview which starts out with, "We’re pleased to announce this one is with avocational paleontologist and expert fossil-finder, Jason Kowinsky. Jayson is the creator of the popular website FossilGuy.com and a long-time contributor to paleontological discoveries and education," so it checks out for me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Mr Kowinsky is knowledgeable – this is, after all, his hobby. That doesn't alter the fact that this site is the work of an amateur, and thus in my view fails the required FA standards of quality and reliability, but I'll leave the coordinators to make a judgement here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If a coordinator does find it unreliable, it's a secondary ref so I can easily just remove it and there's still gonna be another ref around citing the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 29: as per 12 and 17 – 7 citations, no p. refs, book 389 pp.

chapter name is specified in this ref so the page numbers don’t have to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(It's 32 now) That may be your view, but the chapter is paginated and there is no reason at all for not providing the page refs. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 37: what makes theworldslargestsharksjaw.com a high quality reliable source?

it’s written by Joseph Bertucci, brother of Vito Bertucci, and the discussion on the Bertucci reconstruction is what it’s citing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(now 40): Being the brother of an expert does not of itself confer expertise – this is a tribute site. It's also unnecessary to include it, as the point in the text is covered by another reference. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 57: lacks publisher details

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added the website and publisher (from here) – Rhinopias (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 71: there's a stray > sign, also publisher location missing, and no page refs

I just specified the chapter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed, added, but for page refs: it seems as if this is referencing the entire work (unlike ref #70)? Unless the chapter "Megalodon: The Fisherman's Nightmare" should be cited to support the text more explicitly. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(77 now) Why not simply put the page numbers that verify the information given in the text? Chapter headings are not an acceptable alternative in paginated sources. The specified chapter "Final report" is not available in the Google extract, so the link is presently valueless. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added

• Ref 75: publisher location missing and no page ref

Assuming it's been pushed over to ref no. 78, it has a location and the chapter's specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually 81 now, and the necessary details have been added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 76: publisher location missing

Assuming it's now ref no. 79, it's already specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 80: New York Times should be italicised

It is?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed to newspaper parameter – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality and reliabiliuty. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the rest later, life got really busy really quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

I am wondering if you could include more information on the tooth anatomy:

• A bit more on the general shape might be helpful … They are concave on one side, right?
• How do the teeth differ in shape according to their location in the jaw?
• How are the teeth oriented? Is the concave side facing to the inside or outside? I think this is very important, because it is counter-intuitive: I saw museum mounts that got this wrong. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I will do this on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

most likely on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay I added a paragraph to the Teeth and bite force section going over all the points you raised. It does seem kinda weird how the labial side's not convex but no one seems to be questioning it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I've had this on my watchlist for weeks, so about time I reviewed it. As usual with my reviews on science articles, I am coming from the perspective of a non-expert layperson who likes to read about ancient animals. I've only read part of the article so far. My initial concerns are about the Taxonomy section, which as currently written seems unnecessarily confusing. Specifically:

• The history of Agassiz's naming is inverted, describing his 1843 work, then an 1837 attribution to him, then 1835 articles. Why not describe the history in forward chronological order?
• "The teeth of megalodon are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), and on the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon." This could be a more straightforward sentence, such as, "Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon because its teeth are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)."
• "The great white shark was previously considered to be a close relative to megalodon, and the two were placed in the same genus, due to dental similarity ..." The aside about genus could be omitted since it was discussed in the section immediately previous. This would again have the effect of creating a simpler sentence.
• "In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the shark Isurus hastalis than to megalodon, as evidenced by more similar dentition in those two sharks; megalodon teeth have much finer serrations than great white shark teeth. In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the mako shark (Isurus spp.), with a common ancestor around 4 mya." Is that one model? If so, it seems like a lot of repetition in the phrasing. If it's two models, then the difference between them should be made more clear.
• "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, ..." This appears at the beginning of a paragraph that talks about the current preferred classification. It would seem to make more sense to mention this when the older model is discussed, both to consolidate the description of the older model and to make this paragraph more immediately about the current model.
• The rest of the many different classification models are discussed in what seems like a hodgepodge order -- at least it isn't chronological.

That's where I've paused; more to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I ordered everything in order of importance, so what's important about the Agassiz thing is that it was officially described in 1843, and then it shoots off to less important (though still notable) information about some inconsistencies with the dating. I think I fixed that second paragraph in Taxonomy by merging it with the third, and then merging the fourth with the third. The most important thing about it is its classification into Carcharodon and into Carcharocles, and I'm trying to keep the Casier theories close together.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Day 10: you've either run out of comments to give (which is fine), have chosen not to continue with the review (which is also fine), have gotten too busy to go on (which is alright), or you forgot to watch the page. Just let me know which one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I did let myself get distracted. Will take back up with more comments tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Day 20: You know you don't have to do a review right?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Since there is plenty of feedback from other editors and I continue to have other distractions, I'll stop where I was and the coordinator can treat my comments as "drive by". --RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Chiswick Chap

• Just a driveby really, and I don't wish to spoil the party, but there are 5 images showing the complete wide-open jaws of the species. They are remarkable, but perhaps this is slightly too many, too similar? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good!

@Dunkleosteus77: Hi, I write quality articles on Czech version (cs:Mantela zlatá, cs:Létavec stěhovavý), and this is very good article. :) Great! Goodl luck with FAC. --OJJ (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.