Talk:Kogia pusilla

Kogia pusilla has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 21, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Cetaceans (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

For a start, I have removed the stub tags from the article and the talk page.
I will come back to the lead a bit later, but the Taxonomy section is a bit confusing. The first sentence is about this species and then adds information on extant relatives, and the second sentence goes back to other fossil members of the family, and the next sentence returns to this species.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a new paragraph with "The holotype specimen of K. pusilla ...".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the discovery of K. pusilla push up the divergence date of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales?

By not existing 9 mya User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... to after the Early Pliocene after 5.3 mya." Too many "after"s.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where you mention people, like "paleontologist Roberto Lawley", please add their nationality.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Paleobiology section, be consistent in how you refer to and wikilink the different species mentioned.

if you’re talking about Globicephala etruriae, that was mentioned first in Paleoecology, so in Paleobiology it should be G. etruriae User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by mention that it "inhabited the midnight zone" and then mention of "calm, well-oxygenated, nearshore water".

good catch, it was twilight zone along the continental slope User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back now at the lead, it is a fair summary of the article and a reasonable length seeing that it is a short article, but I think it should be rounded off by mentioning the likely cause of extinction.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable, having been expanded by the nominator and hardly edited by others.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are suitably licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]