Talk:Atlanticopristis

Atlanticopristis 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
Date	Process	Result
May 30, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

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?

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

I notice a lack of pictures of the actual fish, and I also notice that that Royal Society ref is open access so all the pictures on it are okay for upload in the Commons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (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? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (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)

I'm not following the second sentence of the lead
Also the article's on the short side so it could be only 2 paragraphs, and some less important detail could be scrubbed off or be more concise (like the part about convergent evolution) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use contractions User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When using quotation marks, comma goes inside the quotation marks User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is a run-on
Instead of "Sarcopterygians," how about "lobe-finned fish"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of the Description section is a run-on an uses commas incorrectly, and you forget to capitalize the word after the period User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The peduncle, (or base), of the..." you choose parentheses or commas, but not both, and this sentence is also a run-on User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sensing a lot of run-ons here
The first sentence of the Specimens section is a run-on User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the CPHNAMA-VT 1174 section is a fragment User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only two sentences in the Specimen section have a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Discovery and naming section you should probably lead or in some place say it's in Brazil or northern Brazil or some such other simplified description like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sentences of the Discovery and naming section should probably be in the Paleoecology section
Is this written in American English or British English because I'm seeing "paleobiology" and "paleoecology" but I'm also seeing "whilst"
The last two sentences of the Discovery and naming section don't have a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When starting a quotation, there has to be a comma before the quotation mark begins, and also I think it's misquoted. Is "synonym" supposed to be plural? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First two paragraphs of the Classification section need refs User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of the second paragraph of the Classification section is a run-on
Most of the Paleobiology section belongs in the Description section (everything except the second sentence so I'm not sure what you could do here, try adding more or something) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First and second sentences of the Paleoecology section are run-ons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong version of "its" in the third sentence of Paleoecology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cenomania needs to be wikilinked User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the Paleoecology section is not written correctly User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of the Description section needs a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First and second sentences of the second paragraph of Description are run-ons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to using commas in place of periods quite often, which causes all these run-ons, but you could use a semi-colon instead if your really don't want to end the sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Sclerorhynchids should be capitalized User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "...compared to modern sawfish, which have their teeth attached via alveoli (tooth sockets)," don't put the comma there because now you're separating two very much connected thoughts User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First two paragraphs of the Description and naming section don't end with a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wikilink things on first mention; Sclerorhynchidae is not wikilinked on first mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the quote, since it goes all the way to the end of the sentence, the period needs to be inside the quotation mark User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting on all the dates in the refs are inconsistent, pick a style, stick with it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref 3 needs |chapter= and |publisher= parameters User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref 4 is missing authors and date User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref 6 currently states the chapter of book as the title, and it's also missing a publisher, and the ISBN is 978-3-89937-053-9 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure all the ISBN's are properly hyphenated User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref 7 isn't properly formatted, and if you want to link an author to a Wikipedia page, use |authorlink= User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref 8 is missing authors User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the refs per MOS and CITEVAR. ISBN hyphenation is unnecessary and not applicable in a GA review. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 30 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. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 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.