Also, any reason for not having a separate taxonomy/classification section? There would certainly be room for the phylogeny inline if you made a separate section, which could be filled in by some further commentary on phylogeny. There's also some stuff that should go in "Paleoecology" (not "Ecology", per convention), namely the dating. On that note, this section needs some info on contemporary animals, if possible.Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I’ve always put Taxonomy first because I’d always figured that people’d need to now what a platanistoid is before going into detail about the anatomy of platanistoids. First thing to start off with should be it’s a river dolphin, it’s related this the south Asian river dolphin, etc., and then it goes off into grooves and sutures and stuff, otherwise people’d get confused User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that there seems to be other unwritten "conventions" with bird and mammal articles where a taxonomy section (which covers everything from history, to classification and evolution) always comes first. I've also followed this in articles about prehistoric mammals, such as
woolly mammoth or Paraceratherium. So at least there is precedence. It is mainly prehistoric reptile articles that veer away from this, following the dinosaur articles.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't think it has been really established anywhere, it has just seemed natural to at least partially follow the structure of articles about living relatives. After all, an extinct whale has more in common with a modern whale than with a dinosaur... But ifd someone one day wants to write an article with a different structure, it would of course be fine, as long as the same information is covered.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)reply
there’re 4 skull images showing it from different positions (dorsal, ventral, lateral, anterior/posterior) in the Commons, and I want to keep them all together (in the gallery). That doesn’t leave any left for the taxobox User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk06:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
"[...] it also had a long neck, as identified by the large, unfused cervical vertebrae in the neck" Not immediately obvious that large = long, although you go on to contrast it with "short" vertebrae. Consider rewording. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
If the paper mentions how the size was estimated, and why the comparison with P. gangetica is justified in terms of size, please include it. Also, since you've given a measurement, "It may have had a similar size to [...]" makes no sense - consider removing "may have". This sentence should also be moved to right after the estimate is given; it's choppy otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
By that, I mean that you should take a moment to define jargon where possible. Also, maybe the latter "unlike" (now "contrary", I see) needs a conjunction such as "also"... i.e. "also contrary to [...]" Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
23:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Are you sure? I thought it best to talk about the specimen and then lead into description about it. Starting off with the specimen then leading off into etymology seems sorta tangential to me User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
*One drive-by comment, since the map of the formation isn't a "range-map" by any stretch of the imagination, it probably belongs in the paleoecology section rather than the taxobox field for range maps.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Another thing, I just noticed you've uploaded the images in very low resolution, but if you go directly to the Peerj site
[1] rather than NCBI, you can download high resolution versions of the same images.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Problem is the existing files are jpgs, the large ones are png, so it isn't possible, unless you convert the pngs into jpgs, and thereby compress their quality.
FunkMonk (
talk)
06:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll replace one image later today to give an example of what I mean. 07:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now replaced the tiny map with the full res version:
[2] I notice it also shows the type locality of Arktocara, which should be mentioned in the caption (though this is not mentioned in the Commons description for some weird reason). I'll ping the uploader,
MrPresident'sCat, so we won't get more tiny uploads in the future.
FunkMonk (
talk)
04:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, it will be shown in thumb size here anyway, so it makes no difference. Even if you look at the picture on Commons, you can simply choose a lower res below the image. It is always best to store images in highest possible res.
FunkMonk (
talk)
05:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
"The specimen, an incomplete skull [...]" This makes no sense because you have not introduced the specimen yet. Just mention that an incomplete skull was collected. Also, this makes the later sentence "The type specimen, the only specimen, was discovered in the Poul Creek Formation, and consists only of the cranium." partly redundant, so that should be merged. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)reply
the skull was introduced right then and there. If it says the specimen’s an incomplete skull, I figure people’re gonna realize the specimen’s an incomplete skull. In any case, they’ve been merged User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)reply
it never specifies how many teeth exactly it has, the source lists it as one of the characteristics it shares with other platanistoids but it doesn't go any further than "has more than 25 teeth" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk04:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
While you're working on images, the cladogram still is bothering me - why is the node Allodelphinidae labelled using a bar instead of the label attribute? And why is it in a box (which cuts into and distracts from Discovery and naming)? Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Some discussion of how Arktocara impacts platanistoid phylogeny might be in order (e.g. platanistoid synapomorphies identified by previous phylogenies or the current phylogeny that it lacks in Taxonomy; its similarity to Allodelphis in either Taxonomy or Description). Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
First thing I notice is that the info about its naming is somehow separated from the taxonomy section, which is nonsensical. I would merge the entirepragrapgh under "discovery" into taxonomy. Seems to be a weird mixture of how dinosaur and mammal articles are written. It is possibly a result of the earlier review, but I think we should follow what has passed in other prehistoric mammal articles.
I would specify that it is the holotype skull that is shown in the gallery
I think it’d be confusing to specify that it’s the holotype skull since there’s only the one
For consistency in the cladogram, it would look nicer if you listed the scientific name of the South Asian river dolphin, and put the common name in parenthesis.
Since this is a monotypic genus, and the article is placed at the genus name, you should write the genus name rather than A. yakataga when you mention it throughout.
"from where the species name yakataga derives from" It is better to give this etymology when you get to the part about the naming of the animal, if the chronology of events is to make sense for the reader.
"The other members of Allodelphinidae, that is, the closest relatives to Arktocara" Very convoluted wording, just say "The other members of Allodelphinidae, the extinct group to which Arktocara belonged were the genera" or some such.
"based on the distance from cheekbone to cheekbone" And surely only when compared with related animals? The distance between cheekbones does hardly indicate an overall size in itself.