Talk:Brygmophyseter/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
This is a fine article and I have no more than a few minor remarks to make upon it.


 * Do we need the "colloquially"? The existence of a name in English makes that clear enough.
 * removed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "was later revised in 1995" => "was revised later the same year"
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "That is to say that the subfamily does not consist a common ancestor and all of its descendants." Why not just say "(not a clade)" after the bluelinked term paraphyletic in the previous sentence, and if you like add at the end "The use of this subfamily would indicate the uncertain taxonomic position of the species."? Readers can easily follow the wikilinks.
 * they can also easily follow the wikilink for paraphyletic in that rational  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "suffix physeter" - no need for "suffix" here.
 * removed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Are all the macroraptorial sperm whales extinct? If so, please write "tended".
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Holotype specimen" - it's always a specimen, so why not just say "holotype". (2 instances)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "A characteristic of raptors, Brygmophyseter had teeth in both of its jaws which had an enamel coating,". Perhaps "Like other raptors, B had enamel-coated teeth in both jaws."
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "humerus in the arm". Perhaps "humerus (arm bone)".
 * I changed it to “...the humerus arm bone...”  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "rorqual baleen whales". Just "rorquals" would do fine, or say "rorquals (baleen whales)" if really necessary. We don't want 2 wikilinks beside each other there.
 * I don’t see what’s wrong with two side-by-side wikilink  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * H'm. Far be it from me to mention it, but, the MoS, actually.


 * "In this episode, Brygmophyseter, which was referred to as the 'biting sperm whale,' was portrayed" => "In this episode, the biting sperm whale was portrayed". We've already introduced the names.
 * when was the name introduced? I don’t think the lead counts as introducing stuff  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "had killed ... had teamed up" - suggest drop the pluperfect and just say "killed ... teamed up".
 * it doesn’t seem right to not use the pluperfect tense for me, but it’s done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not clear why the cladogram goes into great detail about the Physeteridae and Kogiidae, when no comparisons are made in the article with any members of those groups. Suggest stop at those superfamilies.
 * to relate them back to the modern day sperm whales, and to be consistent with the other raptor articles  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You might like to illustrate the cladogram (which will be quite small if you trim it as suggested above), e.g. with pics of a living and an extinct member of the superfamilies shown.
 * that’d make it quite clunky and strange, and the skulls’d all kinda look the same anyways  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Of course we could use whole animal or whole skeleton pics for extant taxa like Physeter.


 * Drive-by comment - I transferred the current taxobox image from Flickr, and I'd just like to note that there's also one that shows the skeleton directly from the side, in case it could be used as a supplemental or alternate image. The background isn't nice, but the postcranial skeleton is shown better. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I cropped the taxobox image so it's not bad now. Certainly scope for another pic of the skeleton if anyone wants to add one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think that'll do, as the article is in excellent shape. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)