Talk:Arktocara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arktocara yakataga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lythronaxargestes (talk · contribs) 05:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I can review this article.

can’t edit now, but I can edit tomorrow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things that stand out to me... the correct title for this page, assuming Arktocara yakataga is the correct species, is Arktocara per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Also, you need the {{italictitle}} template to make the title italicized. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

What specific contemporary animals are you looking for? Also I’m not sure what the dating means in this situation; if you’re talking about how old it is, that’s in the Taxonomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything found in the same formation. Yes, I do mean how old it is, and I do think it should go in Paleoecology. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will get on that, but I feel like I’m just going to get a bunch of algae species. Should I include those too or just fish and stuff like that?
Oh, no, just vertebrates will do. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all anyone talks about in the Poul Creek Formation is mollusks, so I added a couple examples of those, and I changed the name to "Paleoecology"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to take a look at the flow of that section. It's logically choppy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It reads fine on my end. Have you tried reading it in a Southern accent?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about locality, then lifestyle, then dating, then locality again... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought "choppy" meant "hard to read," but in any case I think I fixed it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what all else there is to be said about phylogeny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of diagnosis, for example - traits that allow Arktocara to be placed in specific groups. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well I split it into Phylogeny and Research history   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usually they are called "Classification" and "Discovery and naming", with the former being the third (not the first) section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Classification needs to be the third section. It doesn't make sense without the context of the description. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:41, 22 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 talk  22:24, 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]
Interesting. If that's by convention, no argument from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:27, 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]

I fail to see the purpose of the caption "The images detail over the anatomy of the skull and label the structures", especially given its odd placement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seemed relevant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand it, actually. What does it mean? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the images illustrate all the complex terms of the skull   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that could just go in the body of the text, as a comment. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the footer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider formatting 1.9 by 1.6 to 2.1 centimetres (0.75 by 0.63 to 0.83 in) => 1.9 centimetres (0.75 in) by 1.6-2.1 centimetres (0.63-0.83 in). Very unclear otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{fossilrange}} should be used for the taxobox, and I recommend {{automatic taxobox}} instead of {{taxobox}}. Also, per my editing experience, fossil images are generally preferred over life reconstructions for the taxobox. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:47, 19 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 talk  06:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, anything else you can put on Commons? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve checked. There is none that I know of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, alright then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{fossil range}}
I'm more fond of manual taxoboxes because it's markedly easier and requires less steps to change something should anything need changing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the displayed name in the taxobox should be Arktocara, not Arktocara yakataga. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:24, 22 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]

changed it to "...elongated, unfused..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 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]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It further differed in that it [...]" Differed from what? Not immediately obvious. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You use "Unlike other platanistoids, [...]" twice. Also, split the differences into individual sentences, and discuss them a little more. Lythronaxargestes (talk |contribs) 21:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there really isn't much else to discuss about each one, the study just kinda says it and moves on.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 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]
Well in any case I split them into different sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any specimen number given? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally this goes with the introduction of the specimen in the discovery section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to introduce the specimen first, and then talk about etymology. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 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 talk  22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that you talk about how the specimen was found, and then how it was described (and the naming stuff goes here). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it now, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a change? I don't see it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized now that it didn't save. Now it's fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""Yakataga" translates from the Tlingit language to "canoe road"" - do you mean "[...] translates to "canoe road" in the Tlingit language"? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's another way to say it, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 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]

moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 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]
:/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the best course of action would of course be to upload the high res pngs, and mark the small versions as duplicates. FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would uploading a new version to overwrite the same file not be sufficient? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:15, 21 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'm the least tech savvy person I know, it's a miracle that I can on the computer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 22 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]
Are we sure full res is the way to go? My slow computer can't load up the Alaska image anymore when I click on it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:55, 30 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 talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cranium" is too jargony, just use "skull". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] lacked the bony structure on the ventral (bottom side) of the skull." What bony structure? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the one on the ventral (bottom side) of the skull   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are many bony structures on the ventral side of the skull. Which one is it? Does it have a name? What does the source say? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then in that case what's the point of "the bony structure"? "[...] lacked, on the ventral side of its skull, a thin plate [...]" Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It did not have a large tympanosquamosal recess" Small, or absent? Clarify. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

considering it says, “not have a large,” I don’t think anyone’d take it to mean “not any”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, still not convinced, but a minor quibble I reckon.

The description should be re-ordered so that it addresses the traits of the skull from front to back. I suppose the paper doesn't do that, but this article needs the clarity. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should it go front to back, up and down; or front and back, down and up?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter, just be consistent. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done I think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of Paleoecology should be split into a Paleobiology section, and should come before. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] it is speculated that ancient platanistoids" Weasel wording, reword. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it says it’s speculated because the source said no one’s really fleshed this theory out fully   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you should name the source. Otherwise it's just vague. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how adding "according to [insert name]" would make it any less vague, so I just added "however, this theory has not been properly explored yet"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Ewan Fordyce and Christian de Muizon speculated in 2001 [...]". That's what I meant. Why isn't this less vague? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
because all that's been done is the addition of names, but in any case it's been added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genus needs a genus-authority in the taxobox. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article again, I think Classification can be reverted to its original title Taxonomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at the end of that section: "[...] more than 25 teeth" Where? Top jaw? Bottom jaw? Premaxilla? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:19, 25 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 talk  04:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. Anyhow, that's the paper's problem, not our concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:26, 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]

Why not a bar? The box's there because it's taking up the same space as the taxobox, and so needs to be kept to the left   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"[...]which separates the frontal bone from the nasal bone, was U-shaped" Missing a period. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the paper. Maybe mention that the holotype was mature (as inferred from the sutures). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (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]

there really wasn't any, the author of the journal just decided to also look at Platanistoidea taxonomy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paper does not use the word "beak" anywhere, and I'm not sure this is a better term to use than "snout". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin beaks are snouts, there really isn't a difference as far's I'm aware   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

''[[Waipatia hectori]]'' is redlinked, ''[[Waipatia|Waipatia hectori]]'' is not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems Lythronaxargestes has been away for a while, so if he doesn't return in some time, and when the outstanding issues above are solved, I will finish/continue the review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to be honest I forgot this existed :/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, seems everyone forgot it, I will look over the article once the above issues are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, it looks like Dunkleosteus77 dealt with about half a dozen issues in the same post as the "I forgot this existed" note just above. What else needs to be addressed before you can look over the article? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Dunkleosteus77, ready for me to take a look? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review the article from scratch soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2018 (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.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A, yakataga was a" Stray comma.
fixed
  • Specify wehther only one or more specimens have been found.
in the Taxonomy section is says, “the type specimen, the only specimen...”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could be expanded a bit.
done
  • May be better to start the taxonomy section with the paragraph on the discovery instead of evolution.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you still use the abbreviated binomial instead of the genus name throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a new species 65 years after the collection of the skull" It must have been identified as something else before? What?
All it says is "collected in 1951," and I assume this means that it was previously labeled as "unidentified"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it its closest living relative." Closest living relative, as there were closer relatives which are extinct.
what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, not sure how I missed that the word was already there... FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
Apparently there's some kind of equation Log(L) = 0.92 ∗ (log(BIZY G) − 1.51) + 2.49 that makes that possible for crown cetaceans. Should I add it, it seems kinda off topic?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use metres/centimetres instead of meters though this is supposedly a US English article.
the convert template defaults to British English, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this elongated neck may have made it longer than the estimated size" Not sure why "however" is needed here.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The frontonasal suture between the two eyes on the brow ridge" odd wording, I think it would be a given it had two eyes.
that's fair, removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other vertebrate animals are known from the same formation? If none, this could be stated.
If there's any other animal known from that formation, I cannot find record of them, but I also cannot find anyone saying that there is no record of vertebrates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A. yakataga was a cetacean that lived somewhere between" Why state it was a cetacean here? That should already be clear by that part of the article.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisting of one species" Containing would be more accurate.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being discovered in" Sounds weird, "having been discovered" or just "discovered" would sound better.
I don’t see anything wrong here but I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could still be expanded with some description of its most notable features and what it ate.
Changes look good to me, I can pass when this issue and the one with the abbreviated binomial are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arktocara&oldid=1205334875"