Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article had previously been on FAC (my first FAC). However, the FAC dragged on for months, mostly due to the need to improve some grammatical and sentence structures despite having been given a copyedit before FAC. A coordinator decided that the type of changes the article is needing should be best addressed outside of an especially prolonged FAC and closed it. I've been recommended by one of the main reviewers of the FAC to submit a peer review request for the article.

Thanks, Macrophyseter | talk 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over one week since FunkMonk (main original FAC reviewer) has given the green light on his satisfaction of the article, and a week has gone by without any other activity despite pinging the other original FAC reviewers. Seeing this, I believe that it may be time to renominate for FAC, where the original and new FAC reviewers can both readily review and address. I will be closing this peer review. Macrophyseter | talk 05:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PraemonitusCas LiberJens LallensackDunkleosteus77 I'm near finished copyediting with the article's main FAC reviewer (FunkMonk), and I'll probably need additional comments by others before renominating. Macrophyseter | talk 16:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Casliber link malfunctioned... FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a continued look soon, but please fix the remaining issues from the FAC first (maybe the points can be copied here). FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also a good idea to contact/ping the commentators from the FAC so they can continue here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the points from the FAC (with the points I have responded to so far)

• • "had a lunate tail" Most people won't know what this means. You could explain in parenthesis, or reword.
    • Fixed.
  • "transition to tail vertebrae, the vertebrae that make up the tail" That should go without saying unless you had started with "caudal vertebrae". Also, state what they transition from (dorsals I guess?).
    • Fixed. I just used "precaudal" and explained what that is.
  • You mention scales, but not that skin has been preserved?
    • mentioned the preservation of scales of the fossil in research history.
  • "represents one of the earliest forms and origins of endothermy" Origins even? If it isn't ancestral to the rest, what is meant here?
    • Might have been a bit of a strong term here, so I changed it to "possible origins".
  • "sharks like sharks of the thresher shark" Do you need this many "sharks" in a sentence? You could just say something like "members of the thresher shark family" etc.
    • Fixed.
  • "compared to ectothermic sharks" As you explain the other metabolisms, this should be too.
    • Added quick explanation.
  • "This morphological build allows the shark to be partially warm-blooded,[45] allowing it to function efficiently in the colder environments Cretoxyrhina has been found in." Is double "allowed" needed? Why not just "and" the second time? Also, there's some strange tense stuff here. When you say "he shark", do you mean sharks in general, or this particular genus? If the former, you could be more general, like saying "a shark".
    • modified so only one "allowed" is present.
  • "Cobb's angle" Could be explained.
    • Explained.
  • "and is only found in white sharks for sharks." Pretty clunky, how about "and among sharks, is only found in the white shark?
    • Fixed.
  • "was ovoviviparous as all modern mackerel sharks are. In ovovivipary" Link ovovivipary at the first instead of second mention.
    • Fixed.
  • Link porbeagle shark and any other species mentioned that are not yet linked.
    • Fixed.
  • "of well-preserved vertebra" Vertebrae.
    • Fixed.
  • "The study also identified a syntype tooth of C. mantelli from England and calculated a maximum length of 8 meters (26 ft), making the tooth the largest known specimen yet" This seems odd. Surely the length of the tooth has been known since it was found? I guess it is the living individual, snd not the tooth itself, that is the longest? Or also the tooth? In that case, it would have been known already?
    • Modified to specify the calculated length to refer to the individual represented by the tooth.
  • "Many fossils with Cretoxyrhina feeding marks show no sign of healing, leading to the possibility that at least some of the feeding marks were made from scavenging." Or that the prey just died?
    • I don't get what you're suggesting here.

If an animal has feeding marks from Cretoxyrhina that weren't healed, why is the conclusion that they were scavenged, and not just died from the attack? FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "instead of predation" next to the sentence. I made the sentence originally how it was because I thought the reader would already assume that bite marks mostly meant predation.

The question is more, why would unhealed bite marks indicate scavenging rather than predation? Both can result in unhealed bite marks? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quick explanation on why heal marks = predation and no heal marks = uncertainty.

• • "As most of these fossils show no signs of healing, if they were indeed a result of predation" Seems a bit repetitive following the above?
    • Cut the repetition.
  • "(which is most similar with Cretoxyrhina in morphology and ecological role)" if that's true, why is it just mentioned in passing all the way down there, and not mentioned under description and more prominently under palaeobiology?
    • I'm going to just cut that portion out as the mention in Phylogeny and evolution should be enough.
  • "As Cretoxyrhina possess a robust stocky build capable of fast swimming, powerful kinetic jaws like the great white shark, and reaches lengths" why present tense?
    • Fixed.
  • You say both white and great white shark, I wonder if it should be consistent.
    • This could be a bit of an issue, but I am referring "white shark" to members of the Lamnidae, as the more common term "mackerel shark" is already used for Lamniformes (which has no other common name). Would the terminology be a bit confusing for most readers?

In this case, I think the current use is more confusing than just using the family name, since I (and others) would probably think you're referring to the species. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I have no choice than to use a scientific term for either. Considering that it seems to me that "mackerel shark" is more popularly used for lamniformes, I'll replace "white shark" with "lamnid".

• • " Notable locations include North America, Europe,[58] Israel,[59] and Kazakhstan.[7]" what makes the latter two notable, compared to everywhere else?
    • Those two are locations outside North America and Europe I found the most in scientific literature.
  • "possibly 9 meters (30 ft)." shouldn't this be stated in the section that deals with size then?
    • This is because the 9-meter thing is merely a random brief speculative suggestion made by Siverson in a speech without solid evidence, so I decided that it should not be stated elsewhere.
  • The culture section is pretty weak (sourcing as well), I think it could be cut.
    • Cut.
  • "that it may have, on occasion, swam into partially fresh-water" Not a native Anglophone, but shouldn't this be "swum"?
    • I checked with multiple grammar checkers, all said that both variations of swim are grammatically correct. It seemed to me that "swam" is used above "swum" these days, so I used the former.
  • "was likely to have faced heavy competition with Squalicorax falcatus, Squalicorax kaupi, and Tylosaurus spp., but was unlikely to face competition from other predators such as Platecarpus spp. or Xiphactinus spp.." Based on what?
    • Do you suggest that I should mention how the conclusions were made? (I originally had them, but were cut during GA)

Yes, I see no reason why such context shoulod be cut. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded a bit of what the study used to make conclusions, but still taking into account what the GA Reviewer said, I've for now still excluded the use of a mathematical correlation (p-value) to accompany the conclusions, assuming that it would make it a bit harder for readers to understand. The original pre-GA paragraph went like this-

"A study by Myers and Lieberman (2010) on competition in the Western Interior Seaway using quantitative analytical techniques based on Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and tectonic reconstructions made from PaleoGIS reconstructed theoretical competitive relationships between ten of the most prevalent and abundant species of marine vertebrates in the region including Cretoxyrhina. Using a correlation that a p-value of p ≤ 0.002 in multiple comparisons indicates competition significant enough to determine species distribution (known as candidate competitive replacement or CCR), the study calculated that Cretoxyrhina is likely to have faced heavy competition with Squalicorax falcatus (p-value of 0.022-0.020), Squalicorax kaupi (p-value of 0.036-0.027), and Tylosaurus spp. (p-value of 0.097-0.070). For comparison, the study also calculated that Cretoxyrhina is unlikely to face competition with Platecarpus spp. (p-value of 0.392-0.277) or Xiphactinus spp. (p-value of 0.733-0.697)."

• • Are there size estimates for all species which could be added?
    • Size estimates for C. vraconensis and C. denticulata do not exist yet, and I felt it would be too awkward to add C. agassizensis without the other two species.

The size of agassizensis could be given in the text then? FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no literal size estimate is given, but I say that there still is one as the measurements for a vertebra of the species is recorded and can be run through an equation to find the shark's length. However, I am not sure if it's legal to state a claim in the article while citing your own calculations for it.

Yeah, that would be considered WP:original research. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any news on this, Macrophyseter? FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to take a bit of a break from the article, but I probably should have let you know. Nevertheless, I've just addressed everything above. FunkMonk

The changes look good to me (added some comments above), but I'd suggest pinging the other FAC reviewers for comments before nominating it again. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping them.

• Just a quick question - why is Kronosaurus included in this article if evidence for it encountering Cretoxyrhina is lacking? I think that mentioning Megacephalosaurus is enough for talking about pliosaurids. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally put Kronosaurus to add some fun and mention a potential coexistence with one of the most famous marine reptiles of all time (Cretoxyrhina fossils have been found in Australia). But if it turns out that there is way too few evidence of Cretoxyrhina potentially coexisting with Kronosaurus, then I'll just cut that out. Macrophyseter | talk 23:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]