Jump to content

Talk:Atlanticopristis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAtlanticopristis 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2018Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 25, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the extinct sawfish Atlanticopristis (artist's impression pictured) had multiple barbs on both sides of its teeth?

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
@Dunkleosteus77 The fossil images of Atlanticopristis are from a non-free paper and as such I couldn't include them. Also, the Royal Soceity reference is only used briefly to cite a fact on sawfish anatomy, and the images it has are also of sawfish species not relevant to the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 17:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: the list of specimens should be merged into one paragraph. Single sentence sections are discouraged. Also, specimens are better discussed under history, while whatever anatomical features they have in common should be described under description. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. When you said "whatever anatomical features they have in common", are you referring to the animal, or the specimens?
Oh, the animal. For example, it is tedious to list that every single specimen has three bumps on the front and four to five on the rear, rather give a range, also for their sizes, under description.
Took a look at how other articles managed large amounts of specimens, and changed it as such, Is this good? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 3:25 am, Today (UTC+2)
Looks good to me. Two articles about genera with many specimens I've worked recently on are for example Catopsbaatar and Gallimimus, if you want to have a look at how the info is organised. FunkMonk (talk) 3:33 am, Today (UTC+2)
All done, just a couple notes about your comments. The first two sentences of the Discovery and naming section are fine where they are, since they address the broader details of the discovery's locality, while the Paleoecology section discusses the Alcantara Formation in particular. Secondly, I'm not sure what else I could do so I moved all of the content in Paleobiology to the Description, there's not much I can add without going into needless detail about sawfish anatomy better served in another article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I thought I already closed this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that's it! Thanks for the review, Dunkleosteus77. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.