![]() | Janjucetus 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: May 14, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janjucetus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from Janjucetus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name etymology is generally included in the foremost paragraph. So far as I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.62.232 ( talk) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following section. It is partly off-topic and I simply don't understand much of it or the reference. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 11:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Janjucetus is Jan Juc + Latin cetus ‘whale’, the bones of which were found on the beach area formerly called Jan Juc in Victoria, Australia, but Jan Juc is now called Bellbrae ('Bell’s hillside near a river'). Jan Juc is believed to be a Wathaurung Aboriginal term meaning ‘iron-bark tree’ or ‘forest of ironbarks’. The term also links ironbark trees with the dead; for example, the Tjuraaltja clan made sepulchres in the trees for entombing deceased clans people.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I'll give this a go. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Lead: "As other baleen whales": perhaps "Like ..."
Lead: "It was found" ... we don't know yet that there is only 1 specimen. "The only known specimen was found" would do, for example.
Taxonomy: I believe that's a phylogenetic tree, not a cladogram.
Can't see any good reason why first image "Restoration of Janjucetus" is to the left of a section heading. Maybe shift it down a bit.
Interesting to have two images showing alternative restorations, but not ideal that they both have the same caption. I think we should at least have author and date for each, and preferably a bit of discussion in both the text and the captions of what the science was that the images are trying to portray.
Wikilink to "ultrasonic" is a dab page.
A baleenless baleen whale, gee. Maybe it'd be best to say "mysticete" a bit more often.
"given the proliferation of baleen-bearing baleen whales": do you mean "the later proliferation"?
Figure "Comparison of teeth": these seem to be from 3-D computer models based on scans? I think a little more explanation in the caption might be in order.
Teeth "were situated on the top of the head". Perhaps that needs rewording.
"upper teeth were more widely spaced apart than the lower teeth": so how did that work then? One might have guessed the teeth would interleave.
The ISSNs in (some of) the refs can be dropped as utterly useless.
I think the Nature News ref should have a full date, in the absence of volume and page numbers.
I think that's about it. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)