Talk:Janjucetus/GA1

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

I'll give this a go. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead: "As other baleen whales": perhaps "Like ..."
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead: "It was found" ... we don't know yet that there is only 1 specimen. "The only known specimen was found" would do, for example.
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy: I believe that's a phylogenetic tree, not a cladogram.
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't see any good reason why first image "Restoration of Janjucetus" is to the left of a section heading. Maybe shift it down a bit.
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to have two images showing alternative restorations, but not ideal that they both have the same caption. I think we should at least have author and date for each, and preferably a bit of discussion in both the text and the captions of what the science was that the images are trying to portray.
 * they are both by the same artist, the only real difference between the two is the perspective and the color scheme  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fins do seem differently proportioned but never mind.

Wikilink to "ultrasonic" is a dab page.
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A baleenless baleen whale, gee. Maybe it'd be best to say "mysticete" a bit more often.
 * mysticete is a scary-looking word  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This is a science article, you know. We're allowed to say lengthy graecolatinate words like "photophosphorylation" if we need to.

"given the proliferation of baleen-bearing baleen whales": do you mean "the later proliferation"?
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Figure "Comparison of teeth": these seem to be from 3-D computer models based on scans? I think a little more explanation in the caption might be in order.
 * such as?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Teeth "were situated on the top of the head". Perhaps that needs rewording.
 * better?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"upper teeth were more widely spaced apart than the lower teeth": so how did that work then? One might have guessed the teeth would interleave.
 * maybe, it kinda stops there   User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then we can't do much. If the teeth resemble anything it's those of fossil sharks.

The ISSNs in (some of) the refs can be dropped as utterly useless.
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Nature News ref should have a full date, in the absence of volume and page numbers.
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)