Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [1].

Cretoxyrhina

[edit]
Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This is also my first FA nomination and that I will be away from any internet in the next two days (camping), so I will not be able to respond to anything until them. Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

[edit]

FunkMonkJens LallensackCas LiberPraemonitusLingzhiDunkleosteus77 Alright, I'm back. I've responded to much of the comments. Macrophyseter | talk 04:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary inactivity due to final exams

[edit]

FunkMonkJens LallensackCas LiberPraemonitusLingzhi I probably should have said this earlier. I am currently very close to final exams and have been taking time to study for them since a week or two ago, which is why I have not responded to anything at those times. My exams are this week, so I'm giving a notice that I'm going to be inactive in this FAC until they are over by the end of this week. Apologies for the inconvenience, but I'll try to get right back into it when these exams are over. Macrophyseter | talk 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. Thanks for letting us know. Praemonitus (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, I'll continue my review once my comments below have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I apologize for the absence taking longer than estimated. FunkMonk I've just addressed nearly all of your comments. Dunkleosteus77 Thank you for taking over the activity while I was out! Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the rest of the article soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I will have a look soon. As I stated on the talk page, I think you could go into some more details about that Pteranodon feeding association (now it is only a single sentence with very few details). FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much more detail of the Pteranodon association would you envision? I'm not sure what I should add, and am kind of hesitant of adding too much details as it might overshadow the other information. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example that it is unknown whether it represents scavenging or hunting, which species of C. is involved, and which formation it is from. Also, the tooth is not embedded in the vertebra: "Though the tooth does not pierce the vertebral periosteum, the intimate association of the fossils—in which the tooth is wedged below the left prezygapophysis—suggests their preservation together was not mere chance". FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added another sentence about how pterosaurs like Pteranodon were probably easy targets for Cretoxyrhina. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would still seem quite relevant that it is unknown whether it represents hunting or scavenging, as well as the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs some action here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added formation and hunting/scavenging. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is generally preferred that the subject of an image should "face" the text, and here I'm thinking of the life restoration. Perhaps it could be right aligned, and some of the other images in the Morphology section left aligned. The shark cross section photo could then be right aligned, so it doens't clash with the headers on the left.
    • I've decided to replace the image with Damouraptor's new restoration (which is much, much better than the current one imo), which faces the opposite direction. So I don't really think any change is needed now. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, moot point now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I wonder about, though, do those sources specifically mention competition with Cretoxyrhina? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the sources. The paper regarding Dwardius does say that there is likely competition between it and Cretoxyrhina. The abstract itself even says, "The strong numerical dominance of either Cretoxyrhina or Dwardius in late late Albian to early Cenomanian selachian faunas indicates competitive exclusion in these similar-sized, apex predatory sharks." However, it turns out that the paper citing Cardabiodon doesn't actually say anything about competition between the two, but merely that they probably both shared similar ecological roles as apex predators. I've decided to modify the sentence to mention Cardabiodon but not say that it may have provided competition while stating that Dwardius does and we have evidence of it. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes need citations too.
    • Added. Do you think footnote b seems too obvious to note?
No, statements like "Although this is a clear misspelling" are too strong to be left uncited. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's already cited under ref 13 (Cahuzac et al., 2007). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but since you cite it as well, the date must be known? What do other papers that cite it give as date? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the papers simply cite the years of publications of all the volumes (1833-1843), with some of them also citing the year of the volume used, although not always specifying which volume. Apparently, Quenstedt (1963) titled "Louis Agassiz: Recherches sur les poissons fossiles (1833-1843 "Tableau general":1844)" is said to have the "dates for publication of individual parts" by Lindgren et al (2013). However, I am unable to locate a copy online and the only way I know and to get it is that I have to get it from one of few universities that own a copy (which I physically cannot do). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describe numerous species that are now synonymized as Cretoxyrhina." Species are not synonyms of genera, so perhaps specify "that are now synonymous with Cretoxyrhina species", or mention mantelli specifically.
  • "According to some, there may have been as much as almost 30 different synonyms of Cretoxyrhina at the time" Likewise.
  • There is also an issue of chronology, I wonder if it's best not to use the name Cretoxyrhina until the part of the text where it is actually named? For example, sentences like the following are a bit misleading, because they use a name that was not yet in use: "This all changed with the discoveries of a number of exceptionally well-preserved skeletons of C. mantelli".
    • Based on the scientific papers I've read, when dealing with a taxonomic mess such as a generic dispute, some authors prefer to refer the species by the original scientific name. Although I don't see this being done when laying out the taxonomic history of an undisputed species, I could try that and see which the general audience (in this case you?) would find least confusing. I also removed the direct mention of species or replacing them by terms like "the shark" as an alternative to ease some of the uncomfortableness. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a judgement call of course, and up to you in the end. In Stegoceras, for example, I did it chronologically (so that when the species included were moved to Troodon, I refer to them as such afterwards, until Stegoceras is resurrected again). In Istiodactylus, I use the original genus name Ornithodesmus, until the new genus is named. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could spell out and present Charles R. Eastman (he does have a German Wikipedia page) first time outside the quote.
  • "and consist of a partial vertebral column" Consists.
  • "of a "Portheus" (Xiphactinus audax)" Do we really need that many confusing taxonomic details about another species here? I would just give the current classification.
  • Perhaps you could mention specimen numbers of some of the important skeletons in the history section; since you only give the numbers in later sections and captions, it is now hard to correlate them.
    • Fixed. Also, the new sources cited are from museum databases that seem to lack a few information for citation including year. The KUVP database itself is a virtual program so I am unable to provide a link that directly leads to the cited specimen although I have found (and used as the url for the citation) that I can write instructions onto the link without causing interference. Do you have any advice on how to cite these properly? Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a personal opinion maybe, but I usually find it frustrating that etymologies are not given in the text when the naming of a new taxon is mentioned. Now you have it grouped in an "etymology" section, but I wonder if it would make more chronological sense to distribute it to the relevant parts of the history section. For example after: "and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina". Adding etymologies to these sentences would also make more logical sense to me: "He separated the taxon from Oxyrhina and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina.[14][19] He also identified a second species of Cretoxyrhina based on some of the earlier Cretoxyrhina teeth which he named Cretoxyrhina denticulata".
    • In my personal opinion, while I would find it okay if done with one or two names, I find it a bit awkward to read when placing the etymologies of each scientific name directly with its mention of coinage. It could be because my reading differs from others, but I'd like to see how others would prefer first. Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extension of this, I wonder if the taxonomy section should become a subsection of the history section. They seem to be somewhat arbitrarily split now (the history section deals with naming and placement of new species and genera, hence taxonomy).
  • "Zhelezko (2000)" Present with full name and occupation.
  • "This species would also be moved into Cretoxyrhina" By who and when?
  • "shed new light on the understandings of the shark and, through his new methods, other extinct animals." Is an "and" missing here?
  • "meaning "from Agassiz", named after Lake Agassiz where the species was discovered" It might be worth noting that the Lake itself was named after Louis Agassiz, which is kind of mind blowing, since he named the type species too...
Looks good, just needs a "the": "Coincidentally, lake itself". FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The common name Ginsu shark is a reference to the Ginsu knife" By who and when? I guess it is a relatively recent name.
  • "Vraconian substage of the Albian stage" Links needed. Also goes for many other geological times mentioned in the article.
  • There are a lot of bald statements without attribution under Phylogeny and evolution. For example "These species represents a chronospecies" and everything in the paragraph, and "Cretoxyrhina is most like the modern great white shark" and so on.
  • Also, it is still very inconsistent whether you give full names or not to authors mentioned. You should check this throughout the article.
    • I've revised the mention of studies to name of authors and year unless the author is repeated. However, I've noticed that it feels awkward to mention occupation as the occupation is mostly the same and it gets a bit repetitive.Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth size peaks around 86 Ma during the latest Coniacian and then begins to slowly decline" Why sudden change in tense?
  • "by Isurus appendiculatus (Cretolamna appendiculata), which evolved into Isurus denticulatus[c] in the Mid-Cenomanian, then Isurus mantelli (Cretoxyrhina mantelli)" Seems confusing with all these alternate names without explanations. You should state specifically if it is because this particular study referred to the species that way.
  • "The study claims that the absence of corresponding fossils during the Maastrichtian (72-66 Ma) was not a result" Unnecessary present tense. Arbitrary tense shifts seem to happen a lot, check throughout.
  • "Traditionally, Cretoxyrhina is grouped within the Cretoxyrhinidae" Any reason why you lump together the entire history of classification until recently in one sentence?
    • When I wrote the article, I planned to restrict the phylogeny and evolution section to include only the arguments and theories are that still relevant and or under debate today with previous historical understandings of such being put in Research History. Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you jump from the affinities of the genus to discussion of chronospecies, but then back to affinities of the genus again. Perhaps better to order it so that the two paragraphs on affinities succeed each other.
  • The life restoration could state what it is based on in the Commons description page.
  • You could link terms like Tylosaurus and Cretodus in then image captions.
  • "Taxons" should be "taxa". FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diagnostic characteristics" You need to explain what this means, or use simpler wording (distinguishing features).
  • "closely spaced apart" closely apart seems a bit contradictory. Is "apart" even needed here?
    • Removed the "apart"
  • "The lingual side of the tooth, the side facing the mouth" That seems a bit ambiguous, why not just "inwards" or "facing inside the mouth"?
  • "Juveniles possess lateral cusplets in all teeth,[26] and C. vraconensis consistently retain then in adulthood." Seems odd to say this in present tense, also should be "them" instead of "then".
  • "However, lateral cusplets are only retained up to the lateral teeth in adulthood in C. denticulata and C. agassizensis and only up to the posterior teeth in C. mantelli" Also seems strange in present tense. You are describing it as if this development currently occurs.
  • "height in average" On?
  • "thanks to fossil skeletons like FHSM VP-2187, which consisted of a near-complete" On the other hand, here past tense seems odd, since the specimen still exists.
  • "Other C. mantelli skeletons, such as KUVP-247 and KUVP-69102, also included partial jaws with some teeth in their natural positions, some of which were not present in more complete skeletons like FHSM VP-2187." Likewise. Very odd you describe existing things in past tense and extinct things in present.
  • "the dental formula was reconstructed by Shimada (1997), which is" I'd say it was, especially since the succeeding sentence going into details about this is in past tense.
    • I think the reason I keep getting the tense mixed up here because I thought that the dental formula is a model made by scientists and still existing, while the tooth makeup (explained by the dental formula) is from a dead shark. It's possible I keep confusing model and fossil regarding tense. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a flat dorsal and a wide skull" Dorsal what? Dorsally flat?
  • "The rostrum does not extend much forward from the frontal margin of the braincase, suggesting that the snout is blunt" Again, "was blunt" makes more sense because you are referring to how it might have been, not how it is.
  • "C. mantelli had proportionally large eyes" Here you use past tense, which seems best. But right after, you say "The jaws of C. mantelli are kinetically powerful." I think you should read through the entire biology section (if not the entire rest of the article) and look for inconsistencies like this, it seems quite messy now.
  • Last point on this until I come back "The hyomandibula is elongated and is believed to swing laterally" I doubt it will ever swing again. So keep this in mind when deciding tense.
    • So at this point the only errors from now on that I'd need to fix would be grammatical mistakes?
I still need to read past the description section (going slow, as I mainly do this at work, hehe). FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides C. mantelli, the only fossil representation of Cretoxyrhina is in teeth and vertebra." Not entirely sure what is meant here. Perhaps say "other species in the genus are only represented by" if that's what you mean.
  • "had a lunate tail" Most people won't know what this means. You could explain in parenthesis, or reword.
  • "transition to tail vertebrae, the vertebrae that make up the tail" That should go without saying unless you had started with "caudal vertebrae". Also, state what they transition from (dorsals I guess?).
  • You mention scales, but not that skin has been preserved?
  • "represents one of the earliest forms and origins of endothermy" Origins even? If it isn't ancestral to the rest, what is meant here?
  • "sharks like sharks of the thresher shark" Do you need this many "sharks" in a sentence? You could just say something like "members of the thresher shark family" etc.
  • "compared to ectothermic sharks" As you explain the other metabolisms, this should be too.
  • "This morphological build allows the shark to be partially warm-blooded,[45] allowing it to function efficiently in the colder environments Cretoxyrhina has been found in." Is double "allowed" needed? Why not just "and" the second time? Also, there's some strange tense stuff here. When you say "he shark", do you mean sharks in general, or this particular genus? If the former, you could be more general, like saying "a shark".
  • "Cobb's angle" Could be explained.
  • "and is only found in white sharks for sharks." Pretty clunky, how about "and among sharks, is only found in the white shark?
  • "was ovoviviparous as all modern mackerel sharks are. In ovovivipary" Link ovovivipary at the first instead of second mention.
  • Link porbeagle shark and any other species mentioned that are not yet linked.
  • "of well-preserved vertebra" Vertebrae.
  • "The study also identified a syntype tooth of C. mantelli from England and calculated a maximum length of 8 meters (26 ft), making the tooth the largest known specimen yet" This seems odd. Surely the length of the tooth has been known since it was found? I guess it is the living individual, snd not the tooth itself, that is the longest? Or also the tooth? In that case, it would have been known already?
  • "Many fossils with Cretoxyrhina feeding marks show no sign of healing, leading to the possibility that at least some of the feeding marks were made from scavenging." Or that the prey just died?
  • "As most of these fossils show no signs of healing, if they were indeed a result of predation" Seems a bit repetitive following the above?
  • "(which is most similar with Cretoxyrhina in morphology and ecological role)" if that's true, why is it just mentioned in passing all the way down there, and not mentioned under description and more prominently under palaeobiology?
  • "As Cretoxyrhina possess a robust stocky build capable of fast swimming, powerful kinetic jaws like the great white shark, and reaches lengths" why present tense?
  • You say both white and great white shark, I wonder if it should be consistent.
  • " Notable locations include North America, Europe,[58] Israel,[59] and Kazakhstan.[7]" what makes the latter two notable, compared to everywhere else?
  • "possibly 9 meters (30 ft)." shouldn't this be stated in the section that deals with size then?
  • The culture section is pretty weak (sourcing as well), I think it could be cut.
  • "that it may have, on occasion, swam into partially fresh-water" Not a native Anglophone, but shouldn't this be "swum"?
  • "was likely to have faced heavy competition with Squalicorax falcatus, Squalicorax kaupi, and Tylosaurus spp., but was unlikely to face competition from other predators such as Platecarpus spp. or Xiphactinus spp.." Based on what?
  • Are there size estimates for all species which could be aded?

Sources review

[edit]
I think the question with this and the dissertation below is whether they are considered reliably published sources. I have used theses too, and though it is iffy, if they are cited and discussed in peer reviewed published papers, it would establish their importance. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason not to cite PhD theses (though Bachelor and Master theses are a different matter). PhD theses are high quality sources and are frequently cited by other academic papers; we cannot ignore them. We could think about indicating the type of source in the text though (e.g., "in a 2003 PhD thesis, …"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it extremely awkward to say "in a 2003 thesis" as the information it is citing is too brief and trivial to give that much treatment (I'm only citing the brief mention of the length of Kronosaurus) Macrophyseter | talk 03:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Kronosaurus, mentioning its length seems kind of random, as it didn't seem to live alongside Cretoxyrhina. Is there a reason for mentioning its size in particular? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources seem to be of appropriate scholarly quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Interesting topic. However, the prose is not yet of the high quality expected for a FA. I did a copy edit to the lead trying to resolve some imminent issues there [3]. I may go on with the remainder of the article, but it takes time, of which I currently have very little; I thus cannot promise anything right now. If you could get a good copy-edit, that would be awesome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and look at copyediting in the next day or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Cas Liber

[edit]

looking now....

  • ...as a close relative of the then three species and named in honor of Mantell - does losing this lose any meaning?
"as a close relative of the then three species" is implied since he classified them all into the same genus, but "named in honor of Mantell" should be kept so I went and did that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In para 2 of Research history - if we make the first sentence mention the 30 synonyms we can delete the last sentence of the paragraph (reduce redundancy)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus

[edit]

Support: Thanks for addressing my concerns. It looks good now. Praemonitus (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found most of the article to be a decent read, with the exception of the lead. For me it has too much of a "gee whiz" tone. The first two paragraphs need to adopt more neutral tone and the apparent hyperbole and unnecessary vagueness needs to be cleaned up.

  • "The common name of the type species, C. mantelli, is the Ginsu shark, first popularized in reference to its theoretical feeding methods being comparable to that of the rapid slicing and dicing when using a Ginsu knife." This sentence is an awkward read. Can it be improved?
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. The "rapid slicing and dicing" seems to be a reference to a Ginsu knife advertising campaign, which may not be familiar to some readers. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like there are instances of unnecessary vagueness, redundancy, and/or hyperbole in the lead: "many exceptionally well-preserved skeletons", "most extreme hydrodynamic features", "powerfully kinetic", "very large eyes", and "grew extremely rapidly". In all of these cases, relative to what?

Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with "exceptionally well-preserved skeletons" but I don't know what's meant by "powerfully kinetic jaws" as if it's opposed to "powerfully static jaws," and "most extreme" is definitely too much. The other ones it seems to me clear it's in reference to other sharks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in the context of comparing to other sharks then, what's the difference between "very large eyes" and "large eyes", or between "grew extremely rapidly" and "grew rapidly"? It reads like WP:PUFFERY. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified the lead to remove the puffery. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • 19 instances of "CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al." If you wanna limit the number of authors, you can use the display-authors parameter.
well I filled in all the et al's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a bot for that that goes around and fills all them in?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have a lot of unaddressed commentary here; I am aware that the nominator has been inactive, but if we don't start to see something happening in a day or two, it may be better to archive this and renominate when the nominator has more time available. Sarastro (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to fill in minor grammar and syntax things like above until the nominator comes back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Sorry for not being back sooner, I've been busier than expected. After seven weeks, we have only attracted one support, and I don't really see a consensus that this meets the FA criteria yet. Given the length of time this has sat here, it is better to archive now. The best course of action would be for the nominator to work with FunkMonk, who is finding a lot of issues, away from FAC. That way, when this is renominated, most of the work will have been done already and we should hopefully have an easier ride. Those who have reviewed here can be pinged when the article is renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive1&oldid=1136098309"