Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Livyatan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2018 [1].

Livyatan

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]
got the source for File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg, still working on the other one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
got the other one now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Pbsouthwood

[edit]

I have made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Research history
  • The holotype and Beaumaris tooth are mentioned. Parts of the content imply other specimens exist. Any idea of how many and from where?
there aren’t   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogeny
  • 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?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Basin
  • Tense: The fossil skull still exists? Should tense not be present when referring to fossils? (or refer to the animal in past tense).
should the entire Description section just be in present tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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]
thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • largest tooth of any known animal What about mammoth tusks? (I see that they are excepted in the main text, but not in the lead)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeoecology

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.

good point, removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for general comprehensibility to the ordinary reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...
nope, still into 2018   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • "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?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the book". Should probably be "by the book".
that doesn't seem right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implies either". How about "implies that either".
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so forth". Seems a bit casual.
that is the formallest I can get   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A characteristic of raptorial sperm whales, Livyatan had functional". Technically this says that Livyatan was a characteristic of raptorial sperm whales.
are you sure?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that to me too. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its total size was estimated to be around 13.5 or 17.5 m". You mean length?
changed but's there actually a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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"
I guess both're acceptable here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may have interacted". Although you mean the whale, "it" technically refers to the the spermaceti organ.
fair point, changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused by climate change which caused food populations to drop". Two uses of "caused" is awkward.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)?
could be either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stumbled across them". Should it "it" (it's a skull).
it's talking about the teeth and the mandible so it's plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the final day of a field trip there." "there" is redundant, not to mention awkward considering the next sentence also ends in "there."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossils were prepared in Lima, and are now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum there." Were they also prepared at the museum?
The fossils were prepared in Lima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "author of the book Moby-Dick". Needs a comma after Moby-Dick.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since fetal modern sperm whales have enamel on their teeth before being coated with cementum". The whales are coated with cementum?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "is not known for certain." How about just "is unclear", since you already use "known" and "unknown" in the sentence.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(44 short tons)". How about wikilinking "short tons"?
it's the imperial version of tonnes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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...
I removed an "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skull

  • "The skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long in the holotype." Do you mean "The holotype skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like other sperm whales." Should probably be "like [or as] with other sperm whales."
I don't see the problem here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth

  • "The wearing on the teeth". How about "The wearing on its teeth"?
are there other teeth?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as this". One word—furthermore, moreover, additionally—would work.
changed to "also"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were adaptations to holding struggling prey." This seems off. Maybe "adaptations that made it easier to hold struggling prey."?
I'm not seeing a difference   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has the lowest tooth count". This paragraph otherwise uses the past tense, so "had" should be used.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in each side of the jaw." How about "on each side"?
teeth are in the jaw aren't they?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first right tooth was the smallest". Smallest, or shortest?
there's a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There could be. length is only one way of measuring size. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "measured around 30 cm (12 in)." Should be "...(12 in) long."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the lower teeth have been shown to contain a facet". What's a facet? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
the source used "facet" which I take to mean an indent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "onto the teeth throughout its lifetime." Same.
that's in reference to the whale "its lifetime"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fourth being the largest at around 197 mm". Are the measurements here referring to depth? It's unclear.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basin

  • "was the most deep and wide". Could be "was deepest and widest".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was defined by a groove". What about a fresh phrase, since "was defined by" is used twice.
I got nothing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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"?
I don't see why but done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranging from 7–10 m". Again, doesn't specify length/width/arm span.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was contemporaneous". Should be "contemporaneous with".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spermaceti organ

  • "target animal to shutdown". You want "shut down" (verb), not "shutdown" (noun).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to exposure to the intense sounds." How about "from" instead of "due to", to avoid the "to ... to"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another theory says ... modern sperm whale." I would split this into two sentences.
that seems unnecessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to support this". Should be "in support of this".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternate theory ... to the surface." Again, suggest two sentences.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

  • "including over 3500 shark teeth". Should be "more than", not "over".
changed but is there a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livyatan and Megalodon were likely the apex predators of this area during this time." Not sure why this is here in addition to in "Hunting"?
seems relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5 mya in Pliocene." Should this be "in the Pliocene."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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..."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have been discovered". Should be "have been discovered there".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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

From FunkMonk

[edit]
coming back Friday or Saturday depending on if I can book the plane   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ping me when one of the above reviews are finished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: okay looks good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The culture section seems too insignificant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

at what point is culture considered significant?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 12 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]
such as an animated movie aimed for kids   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:40, 13 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]
most everyone’s seen the giant whale in Ice Age   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 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.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " However, the scientific name Leviathan was also the junior homonym for the mastodon" How did they find out?
I feel like either somebody emailed them, or maybe they googled it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 skull, the jaw, and some teeth, with pieces missing here and there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you should state this clearly then where you mention the holotype first. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 23 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?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Beaumaris sperm whale was estimated to have been" I think you can reiterate that this is probably the same as Livyatan.
fixed I think   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 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?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which connects the two mandibles" There is one mandible, so it connects the two halves of the mandible.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give scientific names for the two modern dwarf sperm whales, but not for the regular sperm whale.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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...
that's exactly what it's supposed to mean   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So part of any given premaxillary tooth was in the maxilla too? Or what does it mean? FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that's exactly what it means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it could be stated more explicitly to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the teeth of Megalodon" You could give the scientific name too.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the biggest diameters of the teeth were around" At what part of the teeth were they thickest?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some overlinking outside the intro.
  • 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.
did I get them all now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the book Moby-Dick by Herman Melville" The name wasn't inspired by the book, the name honours its author.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which stars a gigantic sperm whale" Stars? Seems hyperbolic.
changed to "features"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

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?
no, because it lacks both enamel, and teeth in the upper jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

thanks?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:35, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Livyatan/archive1&oldid=827136065"