Talk:Belemnitida

Belemnitida 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.
Review: September 29, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Cephalopods (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

Palaeontology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Extinction of belemnites in the Cretaceous

The belemnites went extinct in the Cretaceous, or at least that's the scientific consensus. This information is included within references cited in this article, other than an encyclopedia note and an old textbook recently added. Check out the modern Tree of Life citation: http://tolweb.org/Coleoidea/19400 . It is quite possible they lived until the Eocene, but until a scientific article (not a textbook, not an encyclopedia, not a website) can be cited in support of this, we should leave it at belemnites extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. If you want to extend the range, please supply the appropriate references. Note that in the past some fossils were included among the belemnites but were then removed. Maybe that's the confusion here. Wilson44691 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belemnitida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the article should be called Belemnite as the common name, and one that uniquely identifies the clade. However, that's best post-GAN.

I don’t think “belemnite” is much of a household name for that to apply. As far as I’m concerned, belemnite is just shorthand (like shortening Hadrosauridae to hadrosaurid) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me, right? Worldcat finds about 372 books with "belemnites" in their titles, and that's not taking into consideration standard fossil-talk among collectors, brief mentions in a thousand books, and so forth. If you prefer Google evidence, "belemnite" returns c. 386,000 hits, "belemnitida" c. 32,600. In any case, if it were on the "hadrosaurid" naming model then it'd be "belemnitid" (or belemnoid), which it ain't. I am very willing to enter into dialogue as a reviewer, but I expect discussion to be based on evidence. On a personal level, I can assure you that "belemnite" is common parlance among British fossil-collectors (and "les bélemnites" is among our French counterparts), as it has been for centuries. Merriam-Webster says "belemnite" has been in use since 1646, over 200 years before "Belemnitida". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, if we were talking about Belemnitidae, then it would be shortened to belemnitid, and if we were talking about Belemnoidea, then it would be shortened to belemnoid. It's like how Squamata is shortened to squamate and not squamatid, but we are really inconsistent across Wikipedia (like we have Squamata instead of Squamate but we also have Mosasaur instead of Mosasauroidea) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross purposes. "Belemnite" is the older ("prior") term, and the term still in popular use for this group, so it should be the article's name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the name originates from the guards, and not just Belemnitida had guards User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was a sophistical argument. All the guards found as common fossils by the public were and are Belemnitida; the common name is a very good match for the clade. However, this probably isn't a GAN matter and should be resolved separately.

"The largest belemnite known" ... redlinked. But Megateuthis gigantea also claims it's the largest..., without citing a source; as does Commons. Synonyms, confusion among collectors, or what? We could say "in the genus Megateuthis" ...

I cited ref no. 16 when it's mentioned in Development User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are the two names synonyms, and if so, which is the one to use? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say M. gigantea is a synonym of M. suevica, but I've never seen anyone say it's the biggest except Wikipedia and its copies (even the article says the guard measured up to 46 cm which is smaller than M. elliptica). I put {{unsourced}} on the Megateuthis article a while ago (because it also confused me and I wasn't sure what was going on because it was so specific), should I delete the claim instead? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the answer should be yes, if M. elliptica is bigger and not a synonym. You might also add a note to that effect in the M. gigantea article to prevent its popping up again (e.g. "...one of the largest after M. elliptica.[ref]").

"formed the basis of the Mesozoic marine food chain": the next mention of this has simply "at the base of the food chain", i.e. along with all the other groups down there. Actually I'm not clear what "base/basis" means here; they were predators, so they weren't at the bottom of anything. If their prey were exclusively herbivorous, they'd be at level 2, and they could easily have been higher up than that. Probably undue in lead, really.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"nearshore and mid-shelf zones". Perhaps gloss (littoral).

I thought nearshore and littoral were synonyms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but littoral is the term of art. In fact the wording should really be "littoral (nearshore)".

"calcitic guards, and aragonitic pro-ostraca" - this needs glossing in some way. Something like "guards made of calcite, and pro-ostraca and phragmocones of another mineral, aragonite" would be slightly more comprehensible, though I'm a bit doubtful whether we should use the unfamiliar plural forms here.

I don't think switching from adjective form to noun form would help make things more digestible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I suggest you wikilink the minerals as requested: and some change is needed on the way the terms are presented (at first instance). The nouns and the singular forms are certainly more familiar so those changes would be sensible; if you would rather gloss and simplify it another way, do that, but please drop the stonewalling.

"first ever mention": the "ever" is not needed.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"amber": maybe wikilink.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lightning bolt": wikilink to "thunderbolt" and ideally add it to that article with ref (and remove all the uncited content from there, hmm). If ever an article needed a bolt of lightning ...

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally convinced of the value of "Cuttlebone" as a See also; it's normally not even a fossil. Perhaps it should be worked into the text and cited in a discussion of cephalopod skeletons.

It was there when I started, removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Phylogeny' - suggest that the first outline phylogenetic tree of Coleoidea should be bigger (not framed) and annotated with English group names where available and small images, to illustrate the position of the Belemnites within the group. Happy to do this for you if you like.

Alright User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Cephalopod embryonic shells' drawing is not really ideal for this article (it was presumably intended for Cephalopod) as only 1 in 10 of the sub-drawings (and the list of links in the caption) is directly relevant. The "IC" label on the drawing isn't explained, either. We could extract the relevant detail or perhaps find or draw something better.

I think it's a good comparison between belemnites and other cephalopods User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if it's to stay then please explain in the caption what "IC" is.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"experienced a diversification". How about "diversified"?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few small fixes in the article, hope that's ok.

Little busy today, I’ll either get to this later today or tomorrow User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no rush. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The two fossil images in 'Phylogeny' are somewhat misplaced and get in the way at narrower window sizes, so suggest you place them somewhere else (maybe group them in a gallery).

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]