This article is about a really big whale from the Miocene. I think it's up to standard, and I'd like to remind people that news sites are reliable sources. ISBN's and doi's aren't the sole recipients of the mark-of-reliability User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest scaling up the spermaceti image
File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg: what source or data was used to create this image? Same with File:Sperm_whale_head_anatomy_(transverse_%2B_sagittal).svg.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Conversely, the modern sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw, and the ability to use its teeth to catch prey. I could not find anything in the cited reference saying that the modern sperm whale lacks the ability to use its teeth to catch prey.
the ref says that the tooth reduction trend is seen in the sperm whale, and then it says the sperm whale uses suction feeding, and it says the upper teeth are in contrast to the sperm whale which only have teeth in the lower jaw User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Teeth
...the largest tooth of the holotype was the second and third on the left lower jaw... Number inconsistent. Teeth?, were?
@
Pbsouthwood: you coming back to finish the review or did life get busy again? Life's busy on this end too, by the way, so there's no rush for an answer User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Busy? You could say that... I will try to take a look later today. · · ·
Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't understand how lying in a subduction zone could cause pull-apart basins. My plate tectonics is a bit sketchy, but this seems contradictory. The relevance of pull-apart basins is also unclear.
villain— Moby is as much victim as villain, the subject of Ahab's desire for vengeance. I'd prefer the less loaded and less anthropomorphic "antagonist"
hyper-predatory macroraptorial— two technical terms in the first paragraph, neither is linked or glossed to help us
hyper -> into overdrive, predatory -> predator, macro -> big, raptorial -> fancy way to say predator User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Though it has not been given a species designation, the tooth...— perhaps Although as of late 2017 it has not been given a species designation, its tooth...
"similar in size to the modern sperm whale". Since you're technically comparing a genus to a species, would it make more sense to make the comparison after you name the one species in Livyatan?
"A characteristic of raptorial sperm whales, Livyatan had functional". Technically this says that Livyatan was a characteristic of raptorial sperm whales.
"It is distinct from the other raptorial sperm whales by the basin on the skull, and how it spans the entire length of the snout." First, "distinct" should be "distinguished". Second, what spans the entire length of the snout?
"distinct" means "unique" but I changed it anyways, and the basin on the skull spans the snout User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"used in biosonar and communication". I think "for" should be used instead of "in"
"The whale was featured in the animated movie Ice Age: Continental Drift." This comes out of nowhere, and feels like you're just tacking on some pop culture. It would be more relevant if you could say, for example, "The bigness and hugeness and viciousness of the whale has ingrained it within the popular imagination, and has led it to be featured in such things as..."
I feel like saying it's because of its hugeness that it was featured in the movie is somehow OR. I'll be back in a couple hours to finish the other comments User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Research history
"containing teeth and mandible". I don't know the answer, but can you say "containing mandible", or does it have to be "containing a mandible" (or similar)?
"million years ago (mya)". You already did "(mya)" in the lead, so just delete "million years ago" and the parentheses.
whatever's wikilinked in the lead needs to be wikilinked again in the main text User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Phylogeny
"This group is known for having large, functional teeth on both the upper and lower jaws which were used in capturing large prey, and had an enamel coating." You need either a comma after "jaws", or a "which" before "had an enamel coating" (or both).
"a characteristic of sperm whales". Are you referring just to the development of the spermaceti organ, or also the size increase? If the latter, "a characteristic" should be "characteristics".
"Livyatan is the largest fossil sperm whale discovered, and was also one of the biggest known predators, and it had one of the largest bites of any tetrapod, and possibly of any vertebrate." and, and, and, and, and...
"These teeth are thought to be among the largest of any known animal". You go further in the lead, saying "The tallest tooth ... is the largest tooth of any known animal."
in the main text it says that as, "and the largest teeth of the holotype were..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"30.5 cm (12 in) ... 18 cm (7 in)." Also needs words indicating that this refers to height.
Facet may mean an area worn by contact with a tooth from the other jaw to form a flattened area distinct from the natural outer surface. I would expect it to be relatively flat rather than concave. Facet is a common term in gemmology where it refers to the flat surfaces of cut stones. · · ·
Peter (Southwood)(talk): 11:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"due to wearing throughout its life." Should be "their life."
"It was defined by high walls on the sides, and the antorbital notches ... were inside the basin." Is this supposed to be saying two distinct things, or are you trying to say that two things did the defining, the high walls and the antorbital notches?
"dwarf and pygmy sperm whales". There should be a comma after "whales"
that'll get confusing because it'll separate the whales from the number of foramina User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hunting
"consisted of mainly". How about "mainly consisted of"?
"hammerhead sharks; and to a lesser extent". The semicolon doesn't work here. I'd suggest ending the sentence after "3500 shark teeth", and beginning a second with *"These mainly belonged to".
"Beaumaris Bay is". It's sort of implied, but what about "Beaumaris Bay, within the Black Rock Formation, is..." or alternatively "Its place of discovery, Beaumaris Bay, is..."?
"becoming coextinct with the small baleen whales it fed on." Something's off with this grammatically, but also, are you saying that a species of baleen whales went extinct, of that just small baleen whales went extinct? If the latter, I think you should go for a work other than "coextinct."
seems fine to me, a lot of baleen whales went extinct, so Livyatan went coextinct with them User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Overall
Looks good. Most of the points above are grammatical/stylistic, so feel free to take with a grain or spoon of salt as appropriate. --
Usernameunique (
talk) 23:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
From FunkMonk
I want to review this, but I'd like confirmation that
Dunkleosteus77 is still around, as it seems it will otherwise get archived soon.
FunkMonk (
talk) 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd have to agree here, it is a very minor appearance (
WP:trivia), and even if it wasn't, there shouldn't be single sentence sections, per:
[2]FunkMonk (
talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
at what point is culture considered not trivial? Also I can add more sentences if you’d like User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
For a culture section to be justified, the subject must have significant cultural impact or if the appearances have made the animal a household name (e.g. Jurassic park for Velociraptor and Dilphosaurus).
LittleJerry (
talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it is not culture itself that is insignificant, it is the cultural appearance listed here that is insignificant. And again, even if it was significant, a single sentence wouldn't warrant a section.
FunkMonk (
talk) 23:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think Ice Age has made Livyatan a household name.
LittleJerry (
talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That's not the same as making it a household name. Sorry, but the consensus is that the section should be removed.
LittleJerry (
talk) 14:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Setting aside the issue of notability for a moment (which is covered by
WP:in popular culture), consider the following MOS guideline: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."
[3]FunkMonk (
talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I still feel like pop culture is underrated in prehistoric animal articles, but it's been deleted User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
As long as it isn't just a random list of media appearances (as is discouraged by
WP:in popular culture), meaningful sections can be written for some animals. I wrote one for
woolly mammoth, and most recently for Dilophosaurus.
FunkMonk (
talk) 08:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I think the images under description could be rejigged so that the section headers aren't squeezed by the images. If you right align the life restoration, and move the skull image up to the beginning of the teeth section, and the image of the teeth down, it would be fixed.
the subject in the life restoration is facing right, so the image has to be aligned on the left User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There are two subjects, though, one which faces left, so it could be justified, ut no big deal.
FunkMonk (
talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"The discoverers originally assigned the English name of the biblical monster" State which year.
It seems very unclear what is actually known of the animal. First you mention a partial skull, consisting of the mandible and teeth. Do you mean including a mandible and teeth? In which case, how much of the actual cranium itself is known?
The second issue is how many specimens are known. First you indicate it is one specimen, therefore one fossil. But later you say fossils in plural. But then later you say specimen, singular.
there's definitely one specimens and possibly two. "Fossils" is plural here because there's more than one piece User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Lacks "the ability to use its teeth to catch prey" But isn't that what modern sperm whales do? This article even indicates it is unknown how they catch squids:
[4]
that article says it's unknown how and if they catch
giant squid. Sperm whales are suction feeders according to
this article, and their teeth serve no purpose in catching things User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Since the title is Livyatan, and the genus is monotypic, you shoudl use this name throughout, rather than the abbreviated binomial. Now you use a random mix.
it switches every now and then to avoid confusion between L. melvillei and the Beaumaris sperm whale User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
But you always refer to that specimen by common name, so where would the confusion be? Now it just seems very arbitrary when you use which scientific name.
FunkMonk (
talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"when using the modern sperm whale for scaling" I think you can explain how this is done. I assume it is from extrapolating from a known element the two have in common, and figuring out the proportions from there?
" The right maxilla in the upper jaw became slightly convex towards the back of the snout, whereas the left maxilla became slightly concave towards the back of the snout." Does this mean the skull was asymmetrical, or that the two are just not equally preserved?
"no tooth roots were entirely present in the premaxilla portion of the snout" Not sure what this means. That were were no tooth roots in the premaxilla? "Entirely" makes it seem like parts of them were in the premaxilla or something...
When you list scientific names of extinct genera, you should be consistent in whether you write the full binomials or just the genus names. Now it is very inconsistent.
Support - I think it looks good now. You might want to ping the other reviewers for them to complete their reviews.
FunkMonk (
talk) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look now...
Rather than just say "climate change" in the lead, reference the cooling event.
done
define or link "macroraptorial" and "hyper-predatory"
”hyper-predatory” was meant to define “macroraptorial,” but I wikilinked “hyper-predatory”
lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw - err, is there supposed to be a comma before "teeth" here?
Otherwise looking ok
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) - on comprehensiveness and prose. I think this is the best FAC one you've done yet.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Sarastro (
talk) 12:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.