Talk:Janjucetus/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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