Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Cretoxyrhina

Cretoxyrhina

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2019 by Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cretoxyrhina was a large mackerel shark that lived in subtropical and temperate oceans worldwide about 107 to 73 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous. Up to 8 meters (26 ft) in length, this genus was one of the largest sharks of its time, and also among the fastest, with estimated burst speeds of up to 70 km/h (43 mph). It was an apex predator, preying on sharks and other large fish, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and occasionally dinosaurs. Thanks to numerous discoveries of exceptionally well-preserved skeletons of the shark during the 19th and 20th centuries, Cretoxyrhina is anatomically one of the best understood extinct sharks to date. These fossils show that it may have had a lifespan of up to forty years and a general build similar to the modern great white shark, but with facial and optical features similar to those of thresher sharks and crocodile sharks. It was also a likely user of regional endothermy. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Loosely Paraceratherium as a prehistoric fossil taxon
Main editors: Macrophyseter
Promoted: 23 May 2019
Reasons for nomination: My first FA to be nominated for TFA. I believe that this shark deserves a lot more attention than it is given considering how much we know of it as a prehistoric animal known only from fossils.
Support as nominator. Macrophyseter | talk 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a blurb review for this article at WT:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2, so I've used that as the starting point for the blurb. Edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for having made the original blurb suggestion, but I take some offense that you have deleted my blurb in such a manner. I have redone the blurb that blends original suggestion with my nomination as an edit. Seeing as it had gained no traction, it would have been appreciated if you pinged me on your blurb suggestion when it was made. Macrophyseter | talk 05:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for the confusion, and I think the fault is on our end; we need to update the instructions at TFAR and maybe at FAC, too. I'm currently working on the October blurbs; I'll get back to this page as soon as I can. There are some specific problems with this blurb (such as the bolding), but we should be able to keep most of what you want. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the TFAR instructions and left a note at WT:FAC. Pinging the FAC supporters, in case you guys have comments: FunkMonk, IJReid, Casliber, Ichthyovenator. I'm not positive that the article supports "Ginsu shark" as a widely accepted common name, but I'll defer to you guys on that. We need the "a" in front of "large mackerel shark" because it's the shark, not the classification, that lived during the Late Cretaceous. If the "a" feels uncomfortable, then we should revert to the original blurb language. (And this is how I generally handle the "is an extinct genus" language ... if we can pull it off without saying anything that sounds weird, then it's fine, but if not, then the other language is better.) Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I share Dank's concern over Ginsu shark. The article says the Ginsu shark is a specific species, C. mantelli. The source in the article that supports that statement also refers to the same specific species. I don't think we can have that in the blurb (or at least, not as it is) without the article and its sources supporting the statement. Also ...genus of a large mackerel shark seems to have an agreement problem. Shouldn't it be "...genus of large mackerel sharks"? SpinningSpark 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, this is an example of the kind of comments we get when we don't use the original blurb language, so I'm reverting to that: "Cretoxyrhina, the Ginsu shark, was a large mackerel shark ... This genus was ...". That's better for a bunch of reasons. Any more thoughts on "Ginsu shark"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm mainly seeing unreliable sites and coffee-table and Children's books that make the genus a synonym. Fairly knowledgeable sources refer to the species. This is the problem with common names; they are not always stable or consistent. Frankly, I don't think we need it in the blurb at all. The ad campaign was over 30 years ago, so most American readers won't get the connection and to readers outside the US it will be pretty meaningless. SpinningSpark 17:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the blurb as now edited by Dank. SpinningSpark 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. Well written and informative. Plus it is a while since we had a TFA with an image of a tooth. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good read. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I did a tiny bit of copy edit on the article. Three notes: failing to cite neither Shimada (1997)[c] nor Shimada (2005) is a double-negative, which I assume was unintended ("failing to do neither" means that one "did both"). The dental formula is given inline while the shorter formula for body length is given on its own line; I feel these could each be on their own line, separate from the text, for consistency. For notable differences in the size of the I1 tooth and lateral profiles I felt that "I1" might have been unclear and wrote that as "first intermediate" from the dental formula. I hope that's right; the source calls it "UA3" but doesn't define what this means. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great work, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]