Talk:Evolution of cetaceans/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Modern evolution of cetaceans" I'd think "continued" might work better than "modern" here?
 * Good point, modern generally refers to the last 2000 years. However, "Continued" is also vague because it's continued from where? How about "Recent evolution" (which I suppose also has the same vagueness) or "Cultural evolution"?
 * "Cultural" wouldn't cover "Environmental factors", so recent is better. But I'm sure there must be something even more appropriate...
 * changed


 * "Their fingers, however, retained the mobile joints of their ambulocetid relatives. The two tiny but well-formed hind legs of basilosaurids were probably used as claspers when mating. The pelvic bones associated with these hind limbs were not connected to the vertebral column as they were in protocetids. Essentially, any sacral vertebrae can no longer be clearly distinguished from the other vertebrae." Needs a source.
 * added


 * I'd expect more images of extant cetaceans? It is a bit too palaeo-centric in this regard, maybe...
 * Do you mean living cetaceans or cetacean skulls?
 * Anything. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added three


 * There are two places where images are placed on the same "line", I think this is discouraged as "sandwiching".
 * I see one (next to the lead), where's the other?
 * Under Skeletal evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those aren't sandwiched, they're just really big. If text were between them I don't think it would look very good.


 * There is a great deal of overlinking. You can use the Highlight duplicate links tool to find these.
 * I have no idea how to access that tool
 * Here's the script: FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used it and nothing's highlighted (so either I did it wrong or there aren't any duplinks)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "About 80 of the 87 modern species in the order Cetacea." Why "about"?
 * Good luck counting!
 * In that case, no need to be ambiguous, you could say "A selection of extant species in the order Cetacea" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done


 * "A phylogeny showing" Phylogenetic tree?
 * done


 * "triangular teeth of the mesonychids and those of whales." Early whales?
 * fixed


 * "molecular phylogeny data indicates that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls" Since mesonychids are only known from fossils, no DNA, how can this alone determine this? I think it is rather a combination of DNA and morphological analysis. I can see this is explained further below, but at this first mention, you present it as if it is only based on molecular analysis.
 * Morphology says mesonchids but phylogeny (and morphology to some extent) say artiodactyls. Should I continue?
 * You mean elaborate? If so, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "two groups diverged well before the Eocene." You could give a date here.
 * Not too sure there is a date of any kind, just that it's before the Eocene


 * "the recent discovery of Pakicetus" Recentism. This will not be a recent discovery forever.
 * fixed


 * "the earliest archaeocete." Explain.
 * where is that? The earliest archaeocete is Pakicetus
 * No need, since you've explained the term now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The skeletons of Pakicetus show" I'd say fossils instead of skeletons here.
 * fixed


 * "which modern artiodactyls have lost." And modern whales, presumably?
 * fixed


 * "An theory suggests that the earliest ancestors of all hoofed mammals were" What theory? Proposed by who? Also "an" is grammatically incorrect.
 * fixed


 * "The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales" Proposed by who, and until when was it prevalent?
 * added


 * "However, more recent molecular phylogeny" From when, by who? "Recent" means very little in an "eternal" encyclopaedia, and should be avoided.
 * removed "recent", many people did molecular phylogeny between Cetacea and Artiodactyla


 * "as marine endotherms" Explain endotherm in parenthesis.
 * it's wikilinked, does it need to be explained?
 * Hmm, I guess the term "hot-blooded" isn't used anymore, perhaps you could have it in quote marks, or writer that they produce their own heat... FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * added "warm-blooded" in parentheses next to it  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "identified as an Artiodactyla" Why not just artiodactyl, as earlier?
 * Artiodactyla is the actual name of the order (like Felinae and feline)
 * Obviously, but why are you inconsistent in use? In any case, I'm not sure if this use is incorrect, would you ever say "identified as an early Felidae" instead of just "an early felid? FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed


 * "it has two trochlea hinge" Plural, should be hinges.
 * fixed


 * "shared some of traits of modern whales," Malformed sentence.
 * fixed


 * "including a thick and heavy outer coating" Hair is known from this fossil? Never heard about that, sure? I see it is also on the genus page, maybe it was copied from there? The fossils seem to just be bones.
 * since it's from the early Eocene, the hair (or at least an outline of the creature) was preserved
 * Can't find any other reference to this, seems dubious, could you check the source? FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It says that Thewissen reported it to have "a thick and heavy outer coating" but it never says how he figured that out. Should I just removed that sentence?
 * Hmm, I think it's worth researching this, if true it would be important for the article, if not, it should be removed from both here and the Indohyus article. You should look if you can find more info on Indohyus from scholarly sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ just flagging so I don't forget later
 * Everything else that discusses Indohyus just talks about its bones. Should I just remove the mention of hair?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so, it seems like a very dubious claim, the sediments the animal was preserved in don't seem to be the kind that preserves soft tissue. As a bonus thing not related to this article, it should probably be removed from the genus page as well... FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * removed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "that are thought to be the earliest known whales," Earliest known cetaceans might be more appropriate here, since the definition of whale seems iffy.
 * done


 * "Early ancestors" Not sure if this is a proper title. No one can say any of these genera are direct ancestors rather than just early offshoots of the ancestral group. Early relatives/members/cetaceans or such might be better.
 * fixed
 * Indohyus isn't an archaeocete, so not sure if the new title is entirely appropriate either. I think "early evolution" or "evolution of early cetaceans" might be the best compromise, to make it consistent with the title "Evolution of modern cetaceans" below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * changed to "Early evolution" to keep it consistent with "Ongoing evolution" and "Skeletal evolution"


 * I'd also expect more photos and diagrams of actual fossils in addition to/instead of fanciful life restorations; fossils are the actual evidence. For example:
 * I've added some in the Skeletal evolution section


 * "of the auditory bulla" Mention that this is an ear bone.
 * done


 * "According to a study don in 2009" Though there of course is a typo, I'd just say "according to a 2009 study" in cases like this.
 * fixed


 * "the teeth of pakicetids also resemble the teeth of fossil whales" Later fossils whales/cetaceans? As both are in a sense whales?
 * It was pointing out that Pakicetus has some whale-like features despite being terrestrial. Teeth was one example


 * Perhaps you should avoid using the term whale too much, if it is ambiguous and isn't a real clade.
 * replaced with "cetaceans"


 * "and having serrated triangular ones" Replace ones with teeth.
 * done


 * "depending on tympanic membrane" On the.
 * done


 * "morphological analysis by Thewissen et al.," When?
 * added


 * "Hence pakicetids were most likely an aquatic wader." Mix of plural and singular.
 * fixed


 * "By using stable oxygen isotopes analysis, they were shown to drink fresh water." If this is supposed to imply that they did not live in the ocean, state it.
 * added


 * "Ambulocetus, which lived about 49 million years ago, was discovered in Pakistan in 1994. " Perhaps specify that these are considered cetaceans, as it seems unclear whether the former types mentioned are.
 * If it weren't it wouldn't get its own section. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was


 * "dorsal side of the skull, but they face more laterally" Could either replace or explain technical direction terms.
 * fixed
 * Dorsal means upper or top, though, not back (hind). It only means back, as in a back, when referring to vertebrae, yes, but not in skulls. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * *Throws anatomy book in the trash* -- Fixed
 * I think the book s fine, blame the English language instead, which uses the same word for a direction and an anatomical feature... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "was restricted into one plane." Restricted to?
 * I believe this is the correct word choice since their locomotive capabilities were restricted as opposed to terrestrial mammals


 * "Although they could walk on land, as well as swim," In addition to swimming?
 * fixed


 * "a way of swimming similar to caudal undulation, but uses energy more efficiently" Something odd with the grammar.
 * change to "... but is more energy efficient"


 * "This can be seen from" This is demonstrated by.
 * fixed


 * "which will later evolve to become the" Why present tense?
 * changed to "but eventually becomes..."


 * "According to Spoor et al." Date.
 * added


 * "remingtonocetids were probably amphibious whales that are well adapted to" Why suddenly present tense?
 * fixed


 * "had remained unchanged since pakicetids." Seems an odd way to put it. How about "until this point" or some such?
 * that would imply that it's different in remingtonocetids (it's not)


 * The captions of the life restorations would be more useful if they mentioned family rather than order after the genus names.
 * then I couldn't use some images because they would have the same caption (and some the same relative date)
 * You shouldn't replace the genus names, just write what family they belong to. So for example "Rodhocetus (Archaeoceti cca 45 Ma)" becomes "Rodhocetus (Protocetidae cca 45 Ma)". FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "suggesting that Maiacetus gave birth on land." Obvious to us, but perhaps explain why this is implied by such a birth.
 * added


 * "the size of mandibular foramen" The.
 * added


 * "present in them combines aspects of" Present tense again.
 * fixed


 * "had short, large fore- and hindlimbs" Short and large?
 * pretty sure large just means wide. Should I change it?
 * Large just means big, so wide is more clear. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "that are likely to be used in swimming," Likely to have been.
 * fixed


 * "but the limbs give a slow" Present.
 * fixed


 * "that some protocetids had flukes" Tail flukes?
 * "However, it is clear that they are adapted" Present.
 * fixed


 * "Gingerich et al. hypothesized" Date.
 * added


 * " similarly to Ambulocetids pelvic paddling supplemented by caudal undulation." Weird grammar.
 * fixed


 * "Terrestrial locomotion of Rodhocetus" Needs italics.
 * added


 * "in a way similar to how eared seals move on land." Which is how?
 * added


 * The titles Early ancestors as opposed to Evolutionary history seems rather odd. The early members are as much cetaceans as the later ones, so it doesn't really make sense. Since this entire article is about the evolutionary history of cetaceans, having a section called "Evolutionary history" makes even less sense. I'd suggest the title there reflecting that it is about the evolution of modern cetacean groups instead. Maybe just call it "evolution of modern cetaceans" or such.
 * done


 * "Basilosaurids were discovered in 1840 and initially mistaken for a reptile, hence its name." There are some problems with this sentence. First, why is it important here? Also, the grammar is wrong, and it should refer to Basilosaurus, not the group as a whole. I'd just remove it. You don't mention such details with the other groups.
 * removed


 * "Basilosaurids are commonly found in association with dorudontids. In fact, they are closely related to one another." I'd merge these sentence, ending with "and are in fact closely related."
 * merged


 * "Basilosauridae and Dorudontinae" The scope is strange here. If dorudontines are just a subgroup of basilosaurids, they should not be mentioned in the title. But you also call them dorudontids in the section, implying they are their own family. So which is it?
 * fixed
 * Still need to remove Dorudontinae from the section name, they are a subgroup of Basilosauridae, just like basiloraurines are. So you should start the section like Basilosauridae is divided into the subfamilies basilosaurinae and dorudontinae, which lived together etc." FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * removed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If they are indeed both part of the samew family, sentences such as "The mandibular foramen of basilosaurids and dorudontids" should be shortened to just "basilosaurids".
 * done


 * Perhaps mention Whippomorpha somewhere?
 * done


 * "A basilosaurid was as big as the larger modern whales, up to 60 ft (18 m) long; dorudontids were smaller, about 15 ft (4.6 m) long." You should mention which genera these lengths are based on.
 * added
 * These are genera, not species, so you should write genus instead. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "They had a tail fluke," "They too had a fluke" How is this known?
 * first off, they were fully aquatic, they had to have had tail flukes. Also, I'm pretty sure that the caudal vertebrae expands outwards if you look at it straight up or down
 * Hmmm, what does the source say? We can't just assume tail flukes were present because they were fully aquatic, otherwise the recently discovered tail flukes of mosasaurs wouldn't have come as a surprise. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * it says "Basilosaurus had a tail fluke..."  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "and are certainly not involved in locomotion." Present.
 * fixed


 * "according to Fordyce and Barnes," When?
 * added


 * Since this is quite a chunk, I'll review the rest of the article when these are done.
 * Dorudontins should be dorudontines.
 * fixed

Evolution of modern cetaceans and below

 * Since there are still unaddressed issues above, I'll continue with the rest below this line.
 * Before you go into detail about the two main modern groups, is there nothing to say about what happened between basilosaurs and the later groups? Are the baleen and toothed whales of common origin? When did they split? Etc. I see you mention some of this under toothed whales, but such information should probably be dealt with before the individual sections about each group.
 * added what happened to the other basilosaurs, and it is stated the dorudontines are the immediate ancestors to the two parvorders.


 * Thinking a bit further, it seems "Modern evolution" could perhaps be called "ongoing/continued evolution" instead, since "Evolution of modern cetaceans" seems to mean pretty much the same as the current subtitle there.
 * done


 * "gulp-feeding with balaenopterids, skim-feeding with balaenids, and bottom plowing with eschrichtiids" I'd say within instead of with.
 * added


 * "All modern mysticetes are large filter-feeding or baleen whales" I'd change this to "All modern baleen whales or mysticetes are filter-feeders which have baleen in place of teeth" or some such.
 * done


 * "The first members of some modern groups appeared during" What is meant by this? The first baleen whales? If so, just say so.
 * both groups. Should I change it to "the first members of both groups..."?
 * Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "Filter feeding is very beneficial as it allows modern baleen whales" Remove modern, I'm sure ancient baleen whales did it too...
 * done


 * "modern baleen whales to efficiently gain huge energy resources, which makes the large body size in modern baleen whales" No need to name them twice in the same sentence.
 * done


 * "These changes may have been a result of" What changes? Say "the development of filter-feeding" if that is what you mean.
 * done


 * "leading to the demise of the archaic forms" Archaic what? Whales or mysticetes?
 * toothed forms. It's in the baleen whale section so it's talking about baleen whales. Should I change archaic to toothed?
 * Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * Cetoteres should link to Cetotheriidae, not the genus Cetotherium.
 * done


 * "Balaenopteridae (rorquals and humpback whale, Megaptera novaengliae), Balaenidae (right whales), Eschrichtiidae (gray whale, Eschrictius robustus), and Neobalaenidae (pygmy right whale, Caperea marginata)" Why are none of these linked?
 * done


 * "all have derived characteristics" Link and explain.
 * done


 * "the cranium was well compressed" What does "well" mean here?
 * to make room for the melon
 * Explain then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "(a characteristic of the modern toothed whales), giving Squalodon an appearance similar to them." You can't refer to something in parenthesis outside the parenthesis.
 * fixed


 * "However, it is thought unlikely that squalodontids are direct ancestors of living dolphins." You haven't mentioned dolphins until this point. You only say Squalodon was similar to modern toothed whales.
 * fixed


 * "through their melon" Explain.
 * it's wikilinked
 * Words should be linked at first mention, not second. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, in parentheses, explain how the melon works?
 * Oh, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added "a part of the nose"


 * "the rostrum telescoped" Explain both.
 * rostrum is already wikilinked
 * Most readers won't know what telescoped" means in this context.
 * changed to "...telescoped outwards into a beak"


 * "monodontids is Denebola brachycephala" "indicates D. brachycephala's". No need for full binomial.
 * There's no common name, so I abbreviated the genus name
 * Then just write the genus name only, unless you have to mention more species in the same genus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "ancient sperm whales were built to hunt whales." I'm sure not all of them were?
 * fixed


 * "Livyatan melvillei, residing along" Only genus is needed.
 * done


 * "This mouth was specially adapted for" Its mouth.
 * fixed


 * "adapted for eating eobalaenids" Why is this group not dealt with under the section about baleen whales? In general, you go way much more in detail in the section about toothed whales than the one about baleen whales, should be more balanced. Rather than just expanding the baleen whale section, I think the toothed whale section is actually too detailed, and should be trimmed and summarised instead. We need info about general tendencies, not info about when what was discovered, and many details about specific genera.
 * ❌ just flagging it so I don't forget to do it later
 * ✅ but you might want to check it (I can still trim it a bit more if you want)
 * I guess it's ok, but you forgot this, which should probably had been its own point *"adapted for eating eobalaenids" Why is this group not dealt with under the section about baleen whales?" FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just a random genus from the Oligocene. In hindsight I probably should've said "baleen whales" or "small whales"
 * Ah, in that case, you can't say "eobalaenid" about a genus, the "id" part refers to a family, as in Eobalaenidae. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I should've said "Eobalaenoptera", anyways I removed the mention of that


 * "preyed upon by killer sperm whales and sharks such as Megalodon as many other species were." Last part is stating the obvious.
 * removed


 * "Modern cetaceans have rudimentary hind limbs" You need to mention already here that they are completely internal.
 * added


 * "and a pelvic girdle, consisting of an ilium, ischium, and pubis bone." Why is this list needed? It is not unique to whales.
 * removed


 * "can be compared to terrestrial mammals." Compared to those of.
 * removed (I don't know why that was there anyways)


 * "which is needed for eating and drinking of aquatic animals." "By" instead of "of".
 * fixed


 * "were much closer to the top of their head than normal" Than normal for what?
 * fixed


 * "led to rebuilding of the skull and food processing equipment" Rebui8lding and equipment seem like odd choices of words.
 * Their entire anatomy was, in a sense, rebuilt to a point where they are far from recognisable to even their closest cousin the hippo.
 * Then "reshaping" or some such would be more appropriate.
 * replaced  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Their limbs were compared closely to otters because of the swimming that occurred with their hind legs." This sentence is rather clunky. First, do you mean their limbs are similar/comparable to those of otters? Second, the "swimming that occurred with their legs" should be "because their hindlimbs were used for swimming" or some such.
 * done


 * The cladogram in the image at the top of the article implies modern whales evolved from dorudontids. If that is indeed a claim, elaborate on it somewhere, or remove the image.
 * this is talked about in the Basilosauridae and Dorudontinae section


 * The second paragraph under Skeletal evolution (about limb development) is extremely detailed, technical and hard for any non-geneticist to read, I'd suggest simplifying it and trimming it heavily, it is in a far different league than all the rest of the text and looks very out of place.
 * I don't quite know how to simplify genetics
 * Then just trim it down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just explained some of the strange terms but it's still very technical
 * To be honest, I think all of the following could be cut entirely, it looks like it's straight out of a research paper: "The AER is one of two signaling centers responsible for limb bud outgrowth,[44][45] the other being the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) located in the posterior mesenchyme of the limb bud.[45] The maintenance of the AER is dependent on signaling from the ZPA, and thus Thewissen proposed that the degeneration of the AER was caused by a dysfunctional ZPA.[45] The ZPA is regulated in part by expression of the Sonic hedgehog (Shh), which in turn is controlled by the upstream expression of the Heart and neural crest derivatives-expressed protein 2 (HAND2) transcription factor.[45] Though HAND2 was found in the forelimb region in Thewissen’s study of Stenella attenuata (pantropical spotted dolphin), it was absent in the hindlimb region. Thus the hindlimb would fail to express Shh and establish a functioning ZPA, which would result in the degeneration of the AER.[44][45] These findings are consistent with the experimental observations of the regression of the hindlimb bud during development, and suggest that the reduction of Shh expression was a gradual evolutionary process.[45]" FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done
 * Much better, I think, the essential info is better conveyed without all the fluff. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "In later species, such as Basilosaurids" That group is not a species, I'd just say "in later taxa".
 * fixed


 * "the pelvic bone that was no longer attached to the vertebrae and the ilium" I'd say "the pelvic bone, no longer attached to the vertebrae and the ilium,"
 * fixed


 * "Certain genes are believed to be responsible for the changes that occurred to the cetacean pelvic structure. Possible gene candidates for modifications made to the cetacean pelvic girdle include" These two sentences almost say the same and could be merged.
 * done


 * "It is thought that, due to the sexual dimorphism displayed, they were involved in" If this is a fact, why do you write it as if it is some kind of unproven theory?
 * done


 * "Early archaeocetes such as Pakicetus had the nasal openings at the end of the snout, but in later species such as Rodhocetus, the openings had begun to drift toward the top of the skull. This is known as nasal drift.[48] The nostrils of modern cetaceans have become modified into blowholes that allow them to break to the surface, inhale, and submerge with convenience. The ears began to move inward as well, and, in the case of Basilosaurus, the middle ears began to receive vibrations from the lower jaw. Today's modern toothed whales use the 'melon organ', a pad of fat, for echolocation.[49]" All of this is explained earlier in the article. Not sure what to do about this redundancy.
 * "Archaeocetes had a heterodont dentition" You only mention this in a caption, if it is important, it should be mentioned in the text as well.
 * added
 * But you need to explain what it means as well, and what condition modern whales have. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done (I think)

Rest of the article

 * I'll review the rest when all of the above is dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's left?
 * If you look above, many of the comments are unaddressed, including answers to some of your earlier questions. Whether this means you have fixed the issues in the article and simply not answered there, I don't know, but I can see at least some of the issues are not fixed in the article either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Now it seems only the Indohyus and duplicate links issues are left, I'll review the rest of the article in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems the Ongoing evolution only focuses on dolphins and close relatives?
 * Dolphins have a very wide range of motion which allows people to study their psychology, so we can definitively say some dolphin populations have a distinct culture and behavior. The great whales are large, bulky and hard to come by (except minkes) so it is not possible to get definitive answers when studying their psychology and culture. That and almost all don't travel in family groups so they don't have any social bonds
 * Yes, seems a bit unbalanced though, which leads to the point below, that it should be trimmed down. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems the three sections under Ongoing evolution go way too much into detail considering what the scope of this article actually is. Seems most of the detail would be more relevant at dolphin or similar (maybe even an article about social behaviour in whales), not in an article about evolution of whales in general. I think the sections here should be summarised and trimmed by one third at least, and the full information moved to more relevant articles. But if you think that is too drastic, I can request a second opinion.
 * In the intro "The evolutionary history of cetaceans is" should be bolded and not have links, since it corresponds to the article title.
 * If you mean in the lead it is not bolded. Should I remove the links?
 * Yes, and bold it, you link those word again later in the lead anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "to have occurred in India from" I'd rather say the Indian sub-continent, the country of course didn't exist then.
 * fixed


 * ", however a jawbone discovered in Antarctica may reduce this to 5 million years" This should be moved to the article body, too much detail for the intro, and there should never be unique info in the intro.
 * moved


 * You state the same info twice in the intro: "is thought to have occurred in India from even-toed ungulates 50 million years ago," and "order Artiodactyla, and branched off from other artiodactyls around 50 mya (million years ago)" First occurrence should be cut.
 * The first time is in the lead, and the lead is meant to summarize the entire article
 * Both those quotes are from the intro/lead alone. Should only be stated once there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ", and branched off from other artiodactyls" which branched off.
 * "Being mammals,... they have bones in their fins" Why is this significant? Fish have bones in their fins as well.
 * fixed


 * "their skeletal anatomy is more similar to terrestrial mammals than to fish." That should be obvious, I don't see why you need to mention fish here, rather than just saying they are skeletally similar to other mammals.
 * Despite being fully aquatic like fish they have a skeleton much more similar to terrestrial mammals; their aquatic lifestyle didn't change too much of their mammalian ancestry
 * I'd rather say something like "despite their fully aquatic life style, they retained many skeletal features from their terrestrial, mammalian ancestors." FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * replaced


 * "These mammalian characteristics all point to their terrestrial origin, as well as the fact that they are mammals" The latter point is stating the obvious. Fish are not the only animals in the ocean, and whales hardly look like them at all.
 * All mammals came from land, so even the fact that they are mammals points to their terrestrial origin. Should I just get rid of that?
 * I just replaced it with "the first mammals were terrestrial, so cetaceans, being mammals, must have come from the land"


 * "ago in a second cetacean radiation" Only stated as such in the intro.
 * added to the Toothed whale section


 * "with earlier varieties like Janjucetus having very little baleen" Move this to the article body.
 * In the Baleen whale section, it says "...leading to the demise of toothed forms". Should I just expand on this?
 * The problem is you don't mention that genus outside the intro. So yes, could be expanded and mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done


 * "and their size is linked to baleen dependence." You state filter-feeding specifically in the article body.
 * Baleen dependence and filter-feeding are the same thing basically
 * Yes, but you can't expect that the layreader will know this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * added "...and their size is linked to baleen dependence (and subsequent increase in filter feeding)"


 * "Modern-day cetaceans' evolution" Why do you need the genitive '?
 * Possessive apostrophe
 * You can just say "Modern-day cetacean evolution." FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * replaced


 * Since the main subject of this article is the actual skeletal and behavioural evolution of whales over millions of years, I'm surprised you almost skip the "early evolution" entirely in the intro, instead devoting a huge paragraph to the much less significant recent social behaviour. Seems unbalanced.
 * , Everything OK here? Asking out of curiosity because there has been no activity for over a week. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Dunkleosteus said somewhere else he had been sick. But now you're here, might weigh in on the issue of whether the last three sections are too detailed and off-topic for the scope of this article? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry, the red imported fire ant has been my prime focus at the moment and I forgot to actually respond. In regards to your question, it definitely is bloated and in some places too detailed. I think the paragraphs discussing the experiments could be cut back greatly and just give a shorter summary of the results perhaps? Burklemore1 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Early evolution and evolution of modern cetaceans sections deal with macro-evolution, but the Culture and Social structure sections deal with micro-evolution (in certain populations). User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is still very specific to some groups and very long, compared to the earlier sections which deal with the entire group, much more important issues, and much more time, but in comparatively less space. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the spongers thing, that's the most famous example of culture exhibited in cetaceans, and there has been a lot of research done by many studies (which makes it much easier to write :). As to the 'less space' comment, Early evolution takes up a good portion of the article. Also, the culture section is roughly the size of the toothed whale section. User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean all the sections. Since we have two editors already who think it goes into too much detail, I'll have to list this for a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Request for second opinion. The editors at this assessment have been very diligent. My assumption is that this request for a second opinion is asking about the very end of the article and the sections on "Culture, Social Structure and Environmental Factors," and whether these are too detailed and too expansive. In this short form, one needs to affirm that they are very detailed, and also there is the question of whether the subject of general evolutionary pressures on general evolutionary development is properly taken up in an article dealing with the specific issues of Cetaceans. The topic of evolutionary pressures on evolutionary development is much broader than just those three topics ("Culture, Social Structure and Environmental Factors"), and its not clear if the editors of this article are just giving some examples of three possible factors influencing where evolutionary development might be expected to take place. If that is the case, then some consideration should be given to just give a short list of representative examples as long as they are properly sourced. Otherwise, the general topic (Evolutionary trends) appears much too broad to take up in a relatively specialized article on the history of the evolution of Cetaceans. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with . This review has resolved a lot of issues, the only trouble is with the length of the last section. While it explores a lot of experiments, I think these can be shortened. Parts such as As another example, some bottlenose dolphins... may be excluded so that we can have all the points we wish to make, each with a single short example. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 06:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the culture section back a bit  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do not feel the length is very troublesome now, and the information does appear interesting to me., , : mind having another look? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has definitely improved, though I wouldn't mind seeing what others think first before promotion. There may be a few instances where it is slightly bloated, but it is not major at this point. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we hear where FunkMonk is on this. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, I'll be back soon with the last comments. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Last comments

 * The ongoing evolution text still reads like arbitrarily chosen studies about certain dolphins, when there would probably be a similar amount of info for most other species as well. But I'll accept it, since the second opinions express satisfaction with the current text.
 * "Whether or not a dolphin uses a tool affects their eating behavior" Why does it go form singular to plural?
 * I don't see any plural. "affects" is progressive and "eating behavior" is singular
 * "Their" is plural. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "change within the dolphins of a population" You mean individual dolphins?
 * yes


 * "in the long run" Too informal, long term might be better.
 * long term refers to how long something will be in effect, long run refers to things occurring over a long period of time
 * I don't think it's always that specific. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "as shown in studies showing dolphins" Repetetive.
 * changed to "as concluded in studies..."


 * "Spongers put sponges on their noses" What sponges? Sea sponges? Also "noses" seems a rather inaccurate term for the snout of a dolphin, which is not where the nostrils are located.
 * changed to "...put sea sponges on their snout" and wikilinked sea sponge


 * "this tool use is considered a culture." A tool itself cannot be a culture. Use of it can be cultural.
 * changed to "...a cultural trait"


 * "found the fatty acid analyses" Of what?
 * reworded


 * "had very different fatty acid analyses" I doubt the dolphins themselves had analyses, it would rather be the results of the analyses.
 * changed to "...fatty acid results"


 * "even though they are in the habitat is the same." Not sure what this means.
 * changed to "in the same habitat"


 * "thus allowing evolution to act on this culture." Evolution doesn't "act", it would rather be evolution resulting from the cultural behaviour.
 * changed to "...allowing this culture to evolve"


 * "Social structure forms groups that interact with one another" This reads oddly, I guess you mean social behaviour results in groups that interact with other groups?
 * changed to "...forms groups with individuals that..."


 * "this allows for cultural traits to emerge, flow, and evolve." I guess you mean exchange?
 * replaced


 * "dolphin populations in southwestern Australia, who have been known" Which have been known.
 * replaced


 * "This begging behavior spread through" I'd say was spread or has spread.
 * fixed


 * "and it was revealed was that the origin of the species" Something wrong.
 * fixed


 * "outcome of natural mixing between two different species" Why don't you just say hybridization? "Mixing" sounds very informal and non-scientific.
 * replaced


 * "Relationships between these three species had been wondered according to" Not sure what this means.
 * changed to "...had been speculated..."


 * "resulting in regarding the former as subspecies" Resulting in the former being regarded as.
 * replaced


 * "that the Yangtze River dolphin, or "baiji" (Lipotes vexillifer), lacks single nucleotide polymorphisms in their genome." You make it seem like this species still exists, though it is considered extinct.
 * it is ranked as critically endangered by the IUCN


 * "proving again of their differentiation" Proving of? Doesn't seem like correct English.
 * removed


 * "Two endemic, distinctive types of pilot whale, Tappanaga (or Shiogondou) the larger, northern type and Magondou the smaller" It seems highly unlikely that small populations of pilot whales will ever get their own articles in the English Wikipedia, so I don't see a need for red links here. Furthermore, this article is supposed to be general, so we don't even need to know the local names for these populations.
 * I think it would get kind of confusing if I just kept referred to them as "the bigger one" or "the smaller one"
 * The red links are not needed in any case. These populations hardly warrant articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry, I got confused; removed


 * "Some indicate" Wording as vague as this should never be used.
 * changed to "it is thought that..."


 * "in a second cetacean radiation, the first belonging to the archaeocetes." A radiation does not "belong" to a group.
 * changed to "...occurring with..."


 * "with earlier varieties like Janjucetus having very little baleen" In the article body you name several genera, so no need to mention this specific genus in the intro; you name no other genus in the intro, so it seems highly arbitrary.
 * removed


 * "Modern-day cetacean evolution is largely affected by their local culture and social network. Tool-use for foraging in certain societies affects their diet, and allows them to access more varieties of food." I'd remove "their", we're talking about whole population and taxa here, not individuals.
 * replaced


 * I still think there is way too much unnecessary detail in the last paragraph of the intro. You don't go into this much detail about much more important/relevant subjects of the article.
 * trimmed


 * And that should be it! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * is there anything else left?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my last edits, I added some comments after some of your answers above that need to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come so late, I was wondering why there is no mention of the evolution of dolphins and porpoises in the toothed whale subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * added a sentence about each. The line is kind of funny between whale and dolphin and not much is known about porpoise evolution (as far as I know)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One recently described weirdo is the "skimmer porpoise", Semirostrum. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think this is there now, so will pass it, thanks, all! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)