The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Dunkleosteus77 The fossil images of Atlanticopristis are from a non-free paper and as such I couldn't include them. Also, the Royal Soceity reference is only used briefly to cite a fact on sawfish anatomy, and the images it has are also of sawfish species not relevant to the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)17:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Drive-by comment: the list of specimens should be merged into one paragraph. Single sentence sections are discouraged. Also, specimens are better discussed under history, while whatever anatomical features they have in common should be described under description.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Working on it. When you said "whatever anatomical features they have in common", are you referring to the animal, or the specimens?
Oh, the animal. For example, it is tedious to list that every single specimen has three bumps on the front and four to five on the rear, rather give a range, also for their sizes, under description.
Took a look at how other articles managed large amounts of specimens, and changed it as such, Is this good? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 3:25 am, Today (UTC+2)
Looks good to me. Two articles about genera with many specimens I've worked recently on are for example Catopsbaatar and Gallimimus, if you want to have a look at how the info is organised.
FunkMonk (
talk) 3:33 am, Today (UTC+2)
I'm not following the second sentence of the lead
Also the article's on the short side so it could be only 2 paragraphs, and some less important detail could be scrubbed off or be more concise (like the part about convergent evolution) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Classification section is a run-on
Most of the Paleobiology section belongs in the Description section (everything except the second sentence so I'm not sure what you could do here, try adding more or something) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
All done, just a couple notes about your comments. The first two sentences of the Discovery and naming section are fine where they are, since they address the broader details of the discovery's locality, while the Paleoecology section discusses the Alcantara Formation in particular. Secondly, I'm not sure what else I could do so I moved all of the content in Paleobiology to the Description, there's not much I can add without going into needless detail about sawfish anatomy better served in another article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
When you say "...compared to modern sawfish, which have their teeth attached via alveoli (tooth sockets)," don't put the comma there because now you're separating two very much connected thoughts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.