Talk:Brygmophyseter

Brygmophyseter 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: November 27, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cetaceans (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 16 July 2008 by reviewer MSGJ (talk · contribs).

Jurassic Fight Club

I have tagged out the sections on Behavior and "Potential threats" due to lack of verifiability. The information in the sections is from Jurassic fight club and not supported by any peer reviewed papers I can find in the Species. I would suggest merging the JFC information into a single popular culture section specifically about the JFC depiction as the diet, behavior etc are not known at this time.--Kevmin (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed sources are not necessary for an article below GA class. They can be used though. Paleontologists (including Dr. Lawrence G. Barnes) have provided lot of insight about the behaviour and life-style of the Brygmophyseter in the history channel show - Jurassic Fight Club. You can watch the entire episode titled Deep Sea Killers on YOUTUBE to get some idea. Sources are limited on this animal, so we have to work with what we have got.--LeGenD (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have vastly improved the accuracy of the content now. I have differentiated between known facts presented in scientific literature and what has been depicted in pop culture.--LeGenD (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGenD: with this edit you appear to have added a ref to “Fossil Farm Museum of Finger Lakes”, and it’s still here in the article, but it does not appear to actually exist. It just says “server domain not found” and when I type in the title into a search engine it doesn’t come up with anything. I tried putting it into Wayback Machine but all the snapshots were just blank pages. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brygmophyseter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brygmophyseter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brygmophyseter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a fine article and I have no more than a few minor remarks to make upon it.

Do we need the "colloquially"? The existence of a name in English makes that clear enough.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"was later revised in 1995" => "was revised later the same year"

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That is to say that the subfamily does not consist a common ancestor and all of its descendants." Why not just say "(not a clade)" after the bluelinked term paraphyletic in the previous sentence, and if you like add at the end "The use of this subfamily would indicate the uncertain taxonomic position of the species."? Readers can easily follow the wikilinks.

they can also easily follow the wikilink for paraphyletic in that rational User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"suffix physeter" - no need for "suffix" here.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the macroraptorial sperm whales extinct? If so, please write "tended".

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Holotype specimen" - it's always a specimen, so why not just say "holotype". (2 instances)

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A characteristic of raptors, Brygmophyseter had teeth in both of its jaws which had an enamel coating,". Perhaps "Like other raptors, B had enamel-coated teeth in both jaws."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"humerus in the arm". Perhaps "humerus (arm bone)".

I changed it to “...the humerus arm bone...” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"rorqual baleen whales". Just "rorquals" would do fine, or say "rorquals (baleen whales)" if really necessary. We don't want 2 wikilinks beside each other there.

I don’t see what’s wrong with two side-by-side wikilink User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H'm. Far be it from me to mention it, but, the MoS, actually.

"In this episode, Brygmophyseter, which was referred to as the 'biting sperm whale,' was portrayed" => "In this episode, the biting sperm whale was portrayed". We've already introduced the names.

when was the name introduced? I don’t think the lead counts as introducing stuff User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"had killed ... had teamed up" - suggest drop the pluperfect and just say "killed ... teamed up".

it doesn’t seem right to not use the pluperfect tense for me, but it’s done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why the cladogram goes into great detail about the Physeteridae and Kogiidae, when no comparisons are made in the article with any members of those groups. Suggest stop at those superfamilies.

to relate them back to the modern day sperm whales, and to be consistent with the other raptor articles User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to illustrate the cladogram (which will be quite small if you trim it as suggested above), e.g. with pics of a living and an extinct member of the superfamilies shown.

that’d make it quite clunky and strange, and the skulls’d all kinda look the same anyways User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Of course we could use whole animal or whole skeleton pics for extant taxa like Physeter.

Drive-by comment - I transferred the current taxobox image from Flickr, and I'd just like to note that there's also one that shows the skeleton directly from the side[1], in case it could be used as a supplemental or alternate image. The background isn't nice, but the postcranial skeleton is shown better. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I cropped the taxobox image so it's not bad now. Certainly scope for another pic of the skeleton if anyone wants to add one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that'll do, as the article is in excellent shape. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]