Talk:Livyatan/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a carefully-crafted article and I have few comments to make upon it.

Do you have any notes for FA? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond my pay grade, but they always go over refs with a fine-toothed nit comb. Fossilworks may or may not pass muster; LiveScience will likely get a kicking; The Conversation will probably be challenged; IMDb will be judged an unreliable source, I'll wager; even BBC News might be found a bit light for this kind of topic.

"the raptorials" is comprehensible but comes across as a little bit chatty. Perhaps "the raptorial whales" would be more encyclopedic in tone (whatever that is).

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The first Livyatan fossils discovered in Peru were originally dated to around 13-12 million years ago (mya) in the Serravallian Age of the Miocene, but this dating was later proven to be incorrect and revised to 9.9-8.9 mya " is perhaps overegging the blow by blow account. Could simplify to something like "The first Livyatan fossils from Peru were dated to around 13-12 million years ago (mya) in the Serravallian Age of the Miocene, but this was revised to 9.9-8.9 mya ".

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caption "Reconstruction of Livyatan next to Cetotherium" - better say which is which.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The large size was probably an anti-predator adaptation, and also to allow it to feed on larger prey." might be better as "The large size was probably an anti-predator adaptation, and allowed it to feed on larger prey."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some measurements are "cm" and some "centimetres", but all the imperial measurements are "in". Why not use "cm" for all the metric ones.

done

"To a lesser degree, eagle rays, sawfish, and angelsharks were other cartilaginous fish found." isn't clear. Perhaps "Eagle rays, sawfish, and angelsharks were among the other cartilaginous fish found."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"which caused baleen whales increased in size and decreased in diversity," -> ".. to increase .. to decrease".

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "In fiction" account is more detailed than is appropriate here.

seems fine to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Sorry but I simply can't see the relevance of the rather trivial-sounding plot details: whether the whale was whoever's pet, and stuff about pirates has no bearing on the article. All that is required (if the section is indeed helpful at all) is a brief mention that the species featured in the movie.

removed the plot summary User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked also about notes for FA: the reviewers there would very likely jump on this section, either asking for other cultural mentions or objecting to trivia. But who knows.

The Megalodon image should be labelled as a painting and attributed to Karen Carr.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Dunkleosteus77: This article is well up to the required standard for GA, and with a bit of polishing should have a good chance at FAC. While there is no official quid pro quo here at GA, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to review one or two articles in the Biology and medicine GAN queue in the spirit of collegiality. Meanwhile, congratulations on another excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: it's been three days and the page still hasn't been updated yet User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the icon? The bot seems to have pushed off early for Christmas. I fixed it manually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]