Jump to content

Talk:Cretoxyrhina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Cretoxyrhina mantelli)
Featured articleCretoxyrhina is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2018Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
February 13, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 8, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
May 22, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
October 8, 2019Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
April 8, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77 It's been four days since I've responded to your reviews. Did you get notified of the changes? Macrophyseter | talk 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’m busy. I meant to continue today, but then I didn’t. I’ll try tomorrow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
I'm an American, we stop at inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm American too, and I still learned these stuff at school in America. I guess teaching metrics was introduced to schools way too late. Macrophyseter | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don’t understand (nor like) the aversion to pop culture on the creature side of Wikipedia, but the ref you have right now was written by an author of 3 books and graduate from Cornell so it should be fine (but it doesn’t mention Megalodon), but you might wanna explain what a Ginsu knife is advertised as   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


NUMBER 44   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NUMBER 44 CAPS REMOVED Macrophyseter | talk 02:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here again, I might recommend getting a copy edit (which can be requetsed here[1]) for your first FAC, which I usually do. I haven't read the article (saving that for FAC review), but a sentence like "suggesting that the snout is blunt" strikes me as odd to have in present tense (maybe there is more like it). I also wonder if a size comparison diagram could be interesting to have (can be requested at WP:paleoart). FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PaleoGeekSquared

[edit]

Comments by FunkMonk

[edit]
I think it is interesting both from a palaeoecological viewpoint, but also in showing that surprisingly much postcranial material of this shark is known... On another note, my old, ugly photo of the teeth in Copenhagen might be better relegated to the distribution section... FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (about the first part), it seems fairly relevant and should be in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the uploader had misidentified the fossil shark. Mikael Siverson said in a 2012 speech that it's actually from Cretodus crassidens. If you look at the different views of the same fossil, especially the dentition, it actually doesn't very Cretoxyrhina-like either. (The Royal Tyrrell Museum uploaded the speech on youtube, and it's titled "Lamniform Sharks: 110 Million Years of Ocean Supremacy". Siverson's mention of the fossil is between 25:45 and 25:28) Still, I added the picture to the article but I'm going to bend the context so it doesn't incorrectly say that the fossil is Cretoxyrhina unless you are okay with going along with the misidentification. Also, I moved your Copenhagen teeth to distribution and added another photo of Cretoxyrhina teeth. However, I really want pictures of large C. mantelli teeth from the Niobrara Formation, which I can't find that's confirmed CC. Are there ways to find some? Macrophyseter | talk 23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, the image should be relabelled on Commons, and probably not be used here (here is another one:[4])... As for Niobara Formation images, there must be some images published in old US sources that are now in the public domain? That should go with everything published in the US before 1923, and sometimes also before 1963. FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photo you just showed is just the other view of the same fossil. Also, is getting written permission to use someones photo okay or would a specific CC license need to be made? Macrophyseter | talk 18:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what shark it actually is, the one currently on the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, all those images need to be recategorised then. Permission for images have to go through the OTRS process:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the caption, you need to identify the shark as Cretodus, otherwise it's misleading   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can I rename an image file? I can change the descriptions and regular name. Macrophyseter | talk 23:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the move button on the top right corner (should be under the More tab) and be sure you're logged into your Commons account and are viewing the file on the Commons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've requested a change in file name and corrected the misidentification of the two pictures. Macrophyseter | talk 02:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Cretoxyrhina feeding on Pteranodon paper

[edit]

With nice free images that can be used here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

The stress marks in the pronunciation, as originally given, looked wrong to me: /ˌkrˈɪtɔːksiːrhaɪnə/ appears to separate the "Cr-" into its own secondarily-stressed syllable, with primary stress placed on the "-et-" (KR-IT-oxee-ry-nuh). Assuming it's supposed to be KRIH-TOX-ee-ry-nuh, I changed it to /ˌkrɪˈtɔːksiːrhaɪnə/ Lusanaherandraton (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Macrophyseter | talk 06:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newbrey et al. 2013 ?

[edit]

It would seem that the study supposedly published in 2013 titled Vertebral morphology, dentition, age, growth, and ecology of the large lamniform shark Cardabiodon ricki, was published in 2015 after the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica link, can anyone explains me this ?Amirani1746 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]