Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [1].

---

Cretoxyrhina

Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This article underwent a previous FAC about 2-3 months ago, but was closed due to the constant need of fixing grammar/context. Since then, a peer review has been undertaken and I believe this article may fare better this time. Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's been over a week since I have finished addressing every comment, but I don't believe 2 supports may be enough. Nobody new has come by, so I'll try pinging others again Jens Lallensackcygnis insignisBrianboultonPaleoGeekSquaredDunkleosteus77Praemonitus

• Support - I had my say at the peer review, but I can mainly give constructive criticism about the content rather than the prose, so would be good to get the other original reviewers back. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this is dragging out, I would suggest to again ping the other reviewers from the last nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll ping them. Praemonitus Brianboulton Nikkimaria Casliber Jens Lallensack Lingzhi Macrophyseter | talk 05:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions should end in periods if they are complete sentences and otherwise should not
  • Fixed
• Suggest scaling up the scale diagram
  • Done
• Suggest adding alt text
  • Added
• File:Cretoxyrhina_skeletons_KUVP-247_and_FHSM_VP-2187.png: source gives a BY license, not BY-SA. Same with File:Cretoxyrhina_fossils_from_Newbrey_et_al._(2013).png
  • Corrected
• File:Cretoxyrhina_mantelli_scale.png: should include data sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sourced

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out

• What does that mean?

• It means I haven't carried out any checks for verifiability of content against sources. No action required from you. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Various minor formatting issues:

• Ref 1: the publication is Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science

• Fixed

• Some inconsistency in the inclusion of archive and retrieval dates. For example, included for ref 8, omitted from 7, 12 etc

• I believe that citations for scholarly articles do not have archive dates as they do not change once published. Unless I have missed something, it appears that all non-journal sources have been archived.

• Retrieval date formats are inconsistent. E.g. compare refs 2 and 14

• Fixed.

• Ref 66: New Scientist should be italicised.

• Fixed.

• Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool. However, the link in ref 21 should be checked, as it does not appear to reach the indicated source.

• The database that the link goes to appears to be an interactive, so I have not found and feared that there would be no specific link linking directly to the source. However, I was able to write instructions into the link address without glitching it.

• Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding 'Cretoxyrhina mantelli feeding on the pterosaur Pteranodon' (Hone 2018). I cannot access Amalfitano 2019, which mentions this study, so I am a little in the dark. The image File:Cretoxyrhina attacking Pteranodon.png is placed in hunting strategies, but this same image has an expected (and amusing) disclaimer in the source. The authors say this evidence of interaction is studied because of scant information about predation (and scavenging seems more likely?), and text that precedes the hunting strategy section contradicts the artist's fanciful depiction. Maybe just a caption, if the second source weights the notability of the first. cygnis insignis 04:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Amalfitano et al. (2019) only mentions Hone et al. (2018) briefly and once: "Considering all the aspects discussed herein, the conclusions drawn by other authors about caudal fin morphology and metabolic rate estimates (e.g., Ferron, 2017; Kim et al., 2013), and the fossil record of predation attributed to C. mantelli (see Hone et al., 2018; Shimada 1997b; Shimada, Hooks III, 2004), this Cretaceous lamniform shark was likely a fast swimmer with an ecology in some ways similar to that of the living Carcharodon carcharias (see Shimada, 1997d)." I've added "hypothetical" in the image caption to ease immediate contradictory issues. It could also be noted that the artist was one the study's authors.
    • That seems fine, thanks for the quote. The word that came to mind for the caption was 'fanciful' when you consider the strategy involves two objects moving through the air and water, but I may be under-rating sharks abilities in my ignorance. cygnis insignis 06:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Great whites in some areas have been known to at times ram their prey out of the water as a hunting technique, which may possibly also be the case for a similar shark like Cretoxyrhina. (See hunting strategies) If we were dealing with a nurse shark, then 'fanciful' would be the more realistic caption.
        • I misread the scene, the shark seemed to be catching it while flying, apologies. cygnis insignis 22:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Prose

• " … led by Australian paleontologist Mikael Siverson moved the into the genus Cretoxyrhina" A missing word? cygnis insignis 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like a minor typo. Fixed.
• "They were likely scavenged carcasses …" a tweak to this sentence? apologies, I would just fix it if I knew what was intended cygnis insignis 04:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This particular sentence was discussed and revised a bit in earlier reviews, and I believe it may be best for now to keep it the way it is.

Cas Liber

Looks substantially better prose-wise than last time I looked:

• ...providing a rare insight in the biology of the Cretaceous shark - "rare" certainly redundant as meaningless here. In fact, could probably remove the whole segment as it really adds no information (as the insights are later specified).
  • Cut.
• Deep anatomical analysis... - why "Deep" here?
  • I was trying to emphasize the depth of analysis taken, but if that's redundant, cut
• George F. Sternberg found many rare Cretoxyrhina skeletons including KUVP 247 and FHSM VP-2187. - suggest rare means nothing here and should go (lots of taxa are known from fewer remains I suspect...)
  • Replaced with "exceptionally well-preserved."
• The species name denticulata is derived from the Latin denticulus (small tooth) and āta (to have) - ata does not strictly mean "to have"
  • But in this case that is how it is used. Changed to "possession of".
• [Since the coinage of the genus], Cretoxyrhina has been traditionally grouped... - bracketed part is redundant and can be removed
  • Fixed.
• However, the analysis was met with uncertainty due to a lack of data for Cretoxyrhina. - unneccessarily wordy - can be just "However, the analysis was uncertain due to a lack of data for Cretoxyrhina." - in fact you could probably remove the sentence altogether...
  • I think it is necessary to explain why the analysis is being cautioned. I moved a rewording of the sentence behind the conclusion.
• The dentition of C. mantelli is among the best documented and well-understood of all extinct sharks - unnecessarily wordy - can be just "The dentition of C. mantelli is among the best-known of all extinct sharks"
  • Fixed.
• Cretoxyrhina lived in a very diverse pelagic ecosystem. It was contemporaneous with many predators that shared a similar trophic level during the Cretaceous - clumsy. why not "Cretoxyrhina flourished alongside many predators that shared a similar trophic level in a diverse pelagic ecosystem during the Cretaceous"
  • Fixed, but used "lived" instead of "flourished" as it seems a bit weird to use the latter given the subtopics context.
• The exact causes of the extinction of Cretxoyrhina is not fully certain. - "exact" redundant
  • Cut.
• What is known is that its extinction was likely diachronous; a slow process of declination lasting millions of years - wordy and jargony, why not "What is known is that it declined slowly over millions of years"
  • Fixed.
• ...may have provided strong competition with... - why not just, "may have competed with" (strong seems redundant to me - we don't have enough info to confirm that..whatever "strong" means in this case anyway...
  • Fixed.

• ok...tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Reads ok to me and I can't see any outstanding prose clangers. However, I often miss them on pages as well, so consider support tentative and pending some other folks being happy with the prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

This has been open a month without attracting the necessary level of review for promotion... I've added to the FAC urgents list but if nothing changes in another week or so I'll have to archive -- perhaps you could try re-pinging that list of potential reviewers at the top... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, maybe IJReid or Dunkleosteus77 would be interested to have a look. Perhaps also Ichthyovenator, who is familiar with prehistoric sea creatures, and who should be more familiar with the FAC process now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from IJReid

I might as well, marine animals aren't my forté but I think I can give it a good shot. More will come within the day. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would like a little more information on the ~30 species that are supposedly synonyms, some get a bit of prose, others just get a mention in the infobox.
  • What kind of more information would you suggest? I'm not really sure on what to add without creating a need to prose every synonym.
    • I'm simply curious what other synonyms were (juveniles? teeth from other parts of the mouth? etc) essentially why there are 30 names that are all one taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Explained how these synonyms were made because the teeth they were derived from were different from the syntypes.
• Some images of related taxa would be nice
  • Added great white shark image at Phylogeny and evolution
• A diagram of the chronospecies would be nice if you have the time and effort (showing species time span, location, and teeth changes)
  • I know that Carnoferox has made a few of such, I could ask if he's okay with uploading them to wikimedia.
• "4–5" should be "4 to 5" (growth and longevity subsection)
  • Fixed.
• I think some images could be more spread out (Tylosaurus skeleton moved down, scale diagram moved up, assorted fossils moved up to replace most complete skeletons diagram, which in turn is moved up near the mention of their discovery)
  • Done.
• Is there a better image of a Tylosaurus skeleton you could use?
  • I'm not sure what your criteria is for a better image here, but I replaced the one on the article with the Bunker skeleton.

@Macrophyseter: Where are we with responding to these? --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I was busy this week, so I only had time to fix prose until now. I'll get into these shortly. Macrophyseter | talk 19:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything's done that I think is necessary, giving my support IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator

Though I've always found Cretoxyrhina to be a cool animal, for full disclosure's sake I know next to nothing about it. Will add more as I make my way through the article. Overall I find the article to be very well-written. Most of the points below are very minor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• In the first few paragraphs of "Research history"; "syntype" is linked in the image caption but it might also be good to link it at its first mention in the text. Syntype is linked in the text much further down under "etymology", which it shouldn't be.
  • Fixed
• You could link "lateral" at its first mention to Anatomical terms of location#medial and lateral.
  • Fixed.
• Not sure if it is relevant but what were the motivation for assigning Pseudoisurus vraconensis and Telodontaspis agassizensis to Cretoxyrhina? Newbrey et al. (2013) probably provided some reasoning that might be worthwile to include?
  • Done.
• "ontogenetic" could be linked to Ontogeny at first mention, same for "phylogenetic" to Phylogenetics.
  • Fixed.
• "C. vraconensis possessed lateral cusplets in all teeth except for a few anteriors, which would gradually become restricted only to the back lateroposteriors in adults by the end of the interval in C. mantelli" The terms "anterior" and "lateroposterios" might be good to link/explain.
  • Wikilinked.
• In the fourth paragraph of "phylogeny and evolution" there are two "." after "thresher sharks".
  • Fixed.
• Under dentition terms for different types of teeth are again introduced. I don't think most people are familiar with the term "symphosial", so it should probably either be linked or explained in the text, as should other terms not already linked/explained before.
  • Added explaination for symphysial. Anterior and lateroposterior has been wikilinked earlier.
• "Rostrum" is used only once in the article but could use being linked to Rostrum (anatomy).
  • Fixed.
• "olfactory" could be linked to Olfaction.
  • Fixed.
• Sorry if there is an obvious answer but how does knowing it was a pelagic shark mean that we know it had five gill slits or is there fossil evidence for the number of gills it would have had?
  • I decided that its placement was a bit tacky in skeletal anatomy, so I moved its mention in Research history where its mention of fossil evidence is also present.
• After the speed of the modern fastest shark is given you could add that this is the same speed as the one estimated for Cretoxyrhina, I know it's obvious but it's pretty interesting.
  • I do not believe that would be okay despite the two speeds being the same. The speeds of makos have been reported to be faster, although 70 km/hr is the fastest I can find from a scientific paper (I try not to cite the web with the exception of certain scientifically reliable ones like Oceans of Kansas)
    • Okay, should be fine then. Readers will be able to get to that conclusion anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Tylosaurus and Xiphactinus could be linked at their first mention (under "reproduction"), at the moment they aren't linked at all outside of the lead and the image captions.
  • Xiphactinus is already wikilinked in Research history. And as far as my knowledge has collected from past reviews, I believe that the policy is that you only wikilink words in prose once, even if its in lead.
    • Missed the linking of Xiphactinus, "Tylosaurus" is still never linked in the text itself though.Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Tylosaurus is linked in lead.
        • Yeah, but in my experience things linked in the lead should be linked again when they crop up in the text. I have no idea if that it some kind of requirement or not and in any case this is a very minor point, so I'll support it anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Since its peak in size during the Coniacian, the size[1] and distribution[2] of Cretoxyrhina fossils has gradually declined until its eventual demise during the Campanian", has strikes me as an odd word to use here. The sentence would probably work just as well (if not better) without "has" in there at all. "Its" later on makes it sound a bit like it's the fossils going extinct. Might want to have a look at this sentence in general.
  • Cut.

Support - an excellent in-depth article on one of the most famous Mesozoic sharks with a lot of stuff I had no idea about. Excellent choice of images and very well-written. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.