Talk:Kogia pusilla/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "... 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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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)