Alopias palatasi 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: November 18, 2019. ( Reviewed version).

A fact from Alopias palatasi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 January 2020 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is the only one of its kind to possess serrated teeth (pictured)? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alopias palatasi.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Low‑importance 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. Sharks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• "is an extinct species of giant thresher shark" if you say it's giant, it's best to follow it up with how giant it was    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Mentioned tooth size in following sentence.

I think it would be better to say it's comparable in size to the great white shark, and in the body you should probably put the average size of the great white shark and (if you want) a picture of the great white considering they have a similar body outline    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Done both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrophyseter ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• "consists of deep root lobes that do not extend beyond the shoulders of the crown and a strongly arched base" so did the lobes go in an upward direction? Why would anything on the root surpass the crown?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Cut.
• Did they suggest similar ecological roles between this and the great white?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • They only suggested similar body plans based on converging dentition. Do you think it would be too much of a stretch to suggest similar ecological roles?

Yeah, we shouldn't stretch anything that the authors didn't    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• And that's everything    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't get what you are meaning here. Is this a followup to the above comment?
• You should say the name of the holotype and what it comprises, and paratypes if there are any    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Done.
• It's already implied, but you should directly say the species epithet's in honor of Palatas    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Done.
• Reading the study, it doesn't say anything about a symbiotic relationship, it just says "A. palatasi teeth are typically found comingled with the teeth of the giant otodontid Carcharocles chubutensis, a species well represented in the Burdigalian to Langhian and possibly into the Serravallian"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • When I wrote the article I thought that comingling would imply a symbiotic relationship. If that's an unreliable stretch, then cut.

We shouldn't really stretch information. It's okay to explain inferences the author made in greater detail s/he didn't go into, but only if it's clear that's the direction the author was going in. There doesn't seem to be indication that they thought the two sharks had a symbiotic relationship    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Are you sure A. grandis is a synonym? You said it is only mentioned in 1 scientific paper, so therefore it shouldn't have any formal synonyms    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It's what was referred to by fossil collectors/amateurs along with Trigonotodus serratus, but it seems that nobody ever mentioned anything in scientific literature until Kent and Ward. Cut.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 ( talk) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Fossil tooth of Alopias palatasi

• ... that unlike its congeneric relatives, the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is hypothesized to have lacked elongated tails and instead looked more similar to the great white shark? Source: [1] "It is unlikely that the new giant thresher shark possessed an elongated dorsal tail lobe seen in the Recent species. As the dentition is converging on a great white shark and its size was similar or larger, it is reasonable to suppose that the body outline was similar."
  • ALT1:... that the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is the only one of its kind to possess serrated teeth? Source: [2] "Despite extensive research on fossil elasmobranchs in this area, one species of large thresher shark (family Alopiidae) with distinctively serrated teeth has not been previously named."
  • ALT2:... that despite the large attention given to it by the amateur collectors and dealers, discoveries of fossils from a new species of extinct giant thresher shark now known as Alopias palatasi were ignored by scientific literature for over a decade until one was donated to a paleontologist? Source [3] "Curiously, these teeth were well known by amateur collectors and fossil dealers but had no mention in the scientific literature"

Improved to Good Article status by Macrophyseter ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC). reply

• Article has been reviewed as a good article, so no problem there. Article was nominated within a week of being promoted to GA status. This seems to be the nominator's first DYK nomination so no past review on nominator's part per WP:QPQ. Hooks are backed up by citations, long and interesting enough. Personally I favor the second hook as it seems to be the most concise, but I have no real problem with any of the three. Perhaps another editor could weigh in on that. Inter&anthro ( talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply