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
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
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 27, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Added whenever I could. However, many of the stage mentions (especially intervals during evolution) do not give a number date. I do not believe that putting in an approximate estimation when none is given is a safe, nor is simply saying the age span of the entire age when the said interval obviously does not take up all that time. Macrophyseter | talk02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph on mako sharks seems unnecessarily wordy with a lot of “...which then evolved into...” You could just say “the lineage is:” then list them off, or stick with just, “then” instead of “then evolved into” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
when you say lateral teeth do you mean the back teeth? Personally I find anatomical terms of direction unnecessarily complicated (why say anterior teeth when you can say front teeth?) but that change is optional, but remember to stay consistent either way User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is optional but for the explanation of lingual side, do you wanna use “the side that faces the tongue” so people can connect lingual and tongue? I say this because I know the difference between lingual and labial but I still have to stop and think about it this way User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That passage was meant to explain how the dentition would function for the shark. Modified so that the passage is more relevant to the topic of dentition only. Macrophyseter | talk02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”This mechanism is often informally described as "slicing and dicing" by paleontologists,” this doesn’t need a sentence. Put this in the previous sentence as “similar to the slicing and dicing behaviour in modern mako sharks” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, in fact the fossils are essentially just isolated bones that have been corroded by stomach acid. I don't think stomach content will be a good idea to put in because they weren't found inside Cretoxyrhina fossils, but I just added a mention of coprolite anyways. Macrophyseter | talk02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the fossils showing no signs of healing only indicate that the animal was killed in a shark attack? The manner it died seems more to be drawn from fractures and injuries sustained, not that the injuries didn't heal User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, as a shark can still easily make shark attack marks when scavenging an already dead animal, and that animal could have died from other reasons. Macrophyseter | talk02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to bring up regional endothermy in Range and distribution
Second paragraph of the Competition, delete the part explaining how the study calculated everything. Just leave it at, "A study by Myers and Lieberman (2010) on competition in the Western Interior Seaway calculated the threat of competition Cretoxyrhina faced by various species," and when listing the heavy-hitters and low-ballers, leave out the numbers and p values User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility that the section might be deleted altogether. A few days ago there has been some user that's been on a rage and basically deleting the popular culture section from as many extinct animal articles possible (including this one which I reverted because of GA review) while claiming that it's "unnecessary trivia for fanboys". When I reverted his deletion on the Allosaurus page (because its cultural impact is pretty notable imo), he redeleted it, citing this page Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content. While I still don't agree with him just randomly deleting such rather than improving them whenever possible as the article recommended, I decided that the mentions of Cretoxyrhina in video stuff might be too trivial but that only leaves two or three sentences talking about how Cretoxyrhina got popular. And for that portion, I also can't really find a source other than the one cited talking about such. So it's possible that I might have to delete the section altogether, but I'll first like to know about your stance on this.
Personally I don’t understand (nor like) the aversion to pop culture on the creature side of Wikipedia, but the ref you have right now was written by an author of 3 books and graduate from Cornell so it should be fine (but it doesn’t mention Megalodon), but you might wanna explain what a Ginsu knife is advertised as User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would have sworn I put in the doi, it's possible that someone else simply changed it to researchgate because they couldn't access the original doi. Macrophyseter | talk22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 Sorry for the really late reply. I've cited the synonyms with the sources used (I find fossilworks to be full of errors and unreliable for citation, plus it didn't list any synonyms for Cretoxyrhina or C. mantelli). Do you have any suggestions for taking this article for FA nomination? Macrophyseter | talk01:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here again, I might recommend getting a copy edit (which can be requetsed here[1]) for your first FAC, which I usually do. I haven't read the article (saving that for FAC review), but a sentence like "suggesting that the snout is blunt" strikes me as odd to have in present tense (maybe there is more like it). I also wonder if a size comparison diagram could be interesting to have (can be requested at WP:paleoart). FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but there's a discussion on the Paleoart review page (Here [2]) on a new life reconstruction for the article you might want to check out, Macrophyseter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼02:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoGeekSquared I appreciate your copyediting, however I at the moment overrode it because you made the changes while I was modifying for GA. I am unable to add your changes right now, but will implement them once I return. Macrophyseter | talk02:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered using that image since I first began drafting this article, but now I feel like it would be a bit redundant. Nevertheless, I will consider it. Macrophyseter | talk02:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is interesting both from a palaeoecological viewpoint, but also in showing that surprisingly much postcranial material of this shark is known... On another note, my old, ugly photo of the teeth in Copenhagen might be better relegated to the distribution section... FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the uploader had misidentified the fossil shark. Mikael Siverson said in a 2012 speech that it's actually from Cretodus crassidens. If you look at the different views of the same fossil, especially the dentition, it actually doesn't very Cretoxyrhina-like either. (The Royal Tyrrell Museum uploaded the speech on youtube, and it's titled "Lamniform Sharks: 110 Million Years of Ocean Supremacy". Siverson's mention of the fossil is between 25:45 and 25:28) Still, I added the picture to the article but I'm going to bend the context so it doesn't incorrectly say that the fossil is Cretoxyrhina unless you are okay with going along with the misidentification. Also, I moved your Copenhagen teeth to distribution and added another photo of Cretoxyrhina teeth. However, I really want pictures of large C. mantelli teeth from the Niobrara Formation, which I can't find that's confirmed CC. Are there ways to find some? Macrophyseter | talk23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, the image should be relabelled on Commons, and probably not be used here (here is another one:[4])... As for Niobara Formation images, there must be some images published in old US sources that are now in the public domain? That should go with everything published in the US before 1923, and sometimes also before 1963. FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photo you just showed is just the other view of the same fossil. Also, is getting written permission to use someones photo okay or would a specific CC license need to be made? Macrophyseter | talk18:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stress marks in the pronunciation, as originally given, looked wrong to me: /ˌkrˈɪtɔːksiːrhaɪnə/ appears to separate the "Cr-" into its own secondarily-stressed syllable, with primary stress placed on the "-et-" (KR-IT-oxee-ry-nuh). Assuming it's supposed to be KRIH-TOX-ee-ry-nuh, I changed it to /ˌkrɪˈtɔːksiːrhaɪnə/ Lusanaherandraton (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]