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

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.