Wikipedia:Peer review/Cardabiodon/archive1

Cardabiodon

I've just finished drafting this article and will be giving it some final preparation before GA Review and hopefully a possible FAC in the future. I've requested a copyedit, and a peer review would be the next step here.

Thanks, Macrophyseter | talk 07:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Seeing that no additional comments have been made in the past 4 days and previous comments giving the green light, I'll go ahead and nominate this article for GA where other reviewers can readily see it.

A few comments:

• The intro says It has been measured up to 5.5 metres. I'm wondering if this is a bit misleading? Later in the text it's clarified that its length was estimated based on vertebral comparisons and dental analysis. Maybe the intro should instead say something like "It has been estimated to have measured up to 5.5 metres in length, which would make it one of the largest sharks known."
  • Clarified the "estimation" part.
• The note about 5.5m making it "one of the largest sharks known" appears several times in the article, and I think it definitely needs to be sourced. I checked the "Vertebral Morphology, Dentition, Age, Growth, and Ecology of the Large Lamniform Shark" paper that's frequently cited in the article, but couldn't find anything supporting the claim. List of longest fish (which I think only includes extant species), lists 15 fish (most of them sharks) with lengths of at least 6 meters. That makes me a little skeptical of the claim.
  • The statement has a source, but it appears that I forgot to cite that specific statement as it was combined with another that I already cited. Also, I am usually skeptical about size claims that are on list articles without a good ranking, as a number of the sources cited are weak or the claims themselves subject to vandalism/deception (Like the great white shark part, whose source specially states 6.4 meters instead of 7)
    • Could you share the full quote that supports this? I'm just curious more than anything else. Unfortunately I don't have access to the paper from Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh. Colin M (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Siverson (1999) quotes: "Nevertheless, the maximum diameter of the largest vertebral centrum in WAM 96.4.45 equals that of a 5.4 m white shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus 1758) [using formula in Gottfried et al. 1996, p. 60], making Cardabiodon ricki gen. et sp. nov. one of the largest elasmobranchs of all time." Elasmobranchs are the subclass that comprises of sharks and rays.
        • Cool, thanks! Colin M (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• This sentence from the intro is really opaque (to me, as a non-expert): Cardabiodon was an antitropical shark thaneritic and offshore oceans between 40° and 60° paleolatitude with a sea surface temperature range of 17.5–24.2 °C (64–76 °F).
  • First of all, there appears to be a grammar/parallelism issue ("and offshore oceans...")
  • What does thaneritic mean? Would be good to wikilink it, if there's an appropriate article to link it to, or give a quick gloss in parentheses after the word is used.
    • For both comments above, it turns out that the phrase is a typo error, it appears that a chunk of the original text somehow got cut off. It was supposed to say "shark that inhabited neritic and offshore....", Fixed.
  • Similar note on the terms "antitropical" and "paleolatitude"
    • I wikilinked "antitropical" and "palaeolatitude".

- Colin M (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Addressed comments above. Macrophyseter | talk 22:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Colin M Would this be all you have for this peer review, or would there still be more? Should I also try to get a peer more experienced in this subject to assist/take over? Macrophyseter | talk 00:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup, those are all my thoughts. To me it seems like it's ready for GA review, but it's your call where you want to go from here. Colin M (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Why does this[1] file not link to the original APP website, like the other images from there? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relinked to original APP website. Macrophyseter | talk 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking of that paper, why not show the teeth of the other species that are also depicted there (fig. 4)? FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Added that picture in Classification and evolution. Macrophyseter | talk 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• FunkMonk Do you have any comments regarding the article's worded content or do you think it's good enough for GA? Macrophyseter | talk 17:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I will see if I can review it fully here first or wait for the GAN. Have my hands a bit full at the moment... FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is the case, there's probably only one more thing I might have to ask before considering GA Review. The final few sentences in Classification and evolution cites a blog post by Siverson. His content in it provides some information that I can't find in formally published material (He states that he is currently writing a paper on the subject, but is expected to be published many years later), but since it's a blog post powered by a forum, some people might raise some question regarding the reliability of the source. Do you think this source would make it through GA or should I just cut it out (and possibly wait until Siverson publishes a formal paper on the matter years later)?

I have gotten away with using blog posts too, as long as it was by professionals in the field, and did not present controversial information This one might be borderline, since it contains research, but you could mention it in your FAC introduction (who the blog owner is and what part is sourced to it), so that reviewers are aware, and it might be decided during the review what to do with it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Any reason why you don't show the centrum depicted here (fig. 5)?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Added.