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
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
Dunkleosteus77 It's been four days since I've responded to your reviews. Did you get notified of the changes? Macrophyseter | talk 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I’m busy. I meant to continue today, but then I didn’t. I’ll try tomorrow User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As said by Sternberg," Sternberg didn't say Eastman published his analysis in 1894 in the quote User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "describing" can't translate to "published the analysis in [year]". Removed. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent with the references to go first name last name or last name first name (choose either "Mark Everhart" or "Everhart, Mark") User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made all first name last name. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...the lake itself is coincidentally named in honor of Agassiz," I don't think it's coincidental and the statement is missing a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as I guess that's not important anyways. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all but one in the basic summary and one in the Taxonomy page. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need, "labeled as Marker Unit 5 of the Niobrara Formation in Hattin (1982)" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added that Isurus are mako sharks. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NatGeo will go well at FA so you should replace them with the study they're citing User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and replaced with scientific papers. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you need to bring up and explain the morphological data codes, just skip to the conclusion and leave it at it may have been premature/inconclusive User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at least some explanation should be given, so I made it as brief as possible. Macrophyseter | talk 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the explanation on a chronospecies could be cut down. You could leave it with “...C. vraconensis evolving into C. denticulata...” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 | talk 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”suggesting that Cretoxyrhina survived into the Maastrichtian,” is “suggesting” the right word? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just made my life so much easier. Macrophyseter | talk 22:52, 15 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 talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”The dentition of Cretoxyrhina is lamnoid” this seems unnecessarily complicated. You should stick with common names wherever possible (so use mackerel sharks). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. I also changed everything else to "mackerel shark". Macrophyseter | talk 02:09, 16 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 talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to say anterior/lateral/posterior when talking about dental position. Macrophyseter | talk 02:09, 16 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 talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that sharks don't have tongues, so I changed it to "the side that faces the mouth." Macrophyseter | talk 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When comparing species, bring them up in chronological order (like when comparing C. vraconensis and C. mantelli, bring them up in that order) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge “Using these specimens, the dental formula was reconstructed” with the sentence with the dental formula User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the dental formula, say when listing the types of teeth that it’s going front to back User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 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 | talk 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What’s a dorsal temporal? Is it the snout or did you just mean it had a flat head? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to simple "dorsal" as I already used "flat head" (and its not the snout, which was mentioned earlier in the sentence). Macrophyseter | talk 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
when you say neurocranium, do you mean skull? You could also use braincase User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When naming a species by common name, you don’t have to put the word “Genus” before giving the genus name User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out and merged the sentence with the first. Macrophyseter | talk 22:09, 22 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 talk 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about fossils and specimens use present tense, and when talking about how the shark may have been in life use past tense User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mackerel shark is already used for Lamniformes, so I used the alternative common name white shark. Macrophyseter | talk 22:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever possible, do not use scientific names because people aren’t gonna know what they are User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm American too, and I still learned these stuff at school in America. I guess teaching metrics was introduced to schools way too late. Macrophyseter | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you should wikilink “large mosasaur” to Tylosaur nor “macropredatory fish” Xiphactinus, you should just say “macropredatory fish such as Xiphactinus” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, as it's unnecessary it it turned out to be redundant. Macrophyseter | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"fed on much of the variety of marine megafauna in the Late Cretaceous and was a constant threat to other vertebrates in its environment" seems unnecessarily wordy and sort of repetitive User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It occupied the highest trophic level," you already said it was an apex predator User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modified so that it doesn't restate the same thing. Macrophyseter | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Digested bones," this means it was found in coprolite but I think you wanna say stomach contents? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 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 | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"At least one fossil evidence consists of a Cretoxyrhina fossil containing stomach contents including a large C. mantelli skeleton," that's a lot of unnecessary words User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"embedded between the vertebral processes," seems a little complicated, do you wanna use "spine" or simply "vertebrae" instead? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "and evidence suggests" or some variation but that's really not necessary, as if to clarify it wasn't invented out of thin air User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"making them indeterminable on how they were made," but then directly after you say it could be scavenging User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 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 talk 18:27, 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 | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to bring up regional endothermy in Range and distribution
The Competition section should be rearranged so the events happen in chronological order User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it already in chronological order? Macrophyseter | talk 02:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and evidence of interspecific interactions have been found," that's pretty vague. Was it found or not and if so what as it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk 18:27, 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 talk 15:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I need an additional reference to source the claim that the zone it was found in was 107 Ma. Added that additional ref. Macrophyseter | talk 22:05, 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 | talk 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix it, and it turned out it needed an additional reference. Is there an efficient way of citing only what's in parenthesis? Macrophyseter | talk 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ref no. 7 needs a publisher and the parameter |language= since it's not in English User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll stop there, make sure not of the other references have any of the problems I've mentioned above with the first 16
Done. It's been a good four months in the making. Macrophyseter | talk 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For webpage sources (like ref no. 10), you need the parameter |accessdate= and you need to say what the website calls itself User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it’ll pass, but you should probably put the parameter |synonyms_ref in the taxobox and use fossilworks {{fossilworks|title=|id=}} and the id is part of the url User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:34, 26 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 | talk 01:33, 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]
I had commented on it just a few minutes ago. Macrophyseter (talk) 03:10, 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 | talk 02:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I had a feeling there might have been an edit conflict. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I just re-added your copyedit changes, although I did notice that you ended citing one of the sources twice. Macrophyseter | talk 04:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another drive-by comment, is this image[3] of any use? Seems interesting that it is preserved with a turtle, maybe under habitat... FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 17 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 | talk 02:21, 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]
I agree (about the first part), it seems fairly relevant and should be in the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:34, 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 | talk 23:13, 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 | talk 18:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, all those images need to be recategorised then. Permission for images have to go through the OTRS process:[5]FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the caption, you need to identify the shark as Cretodus, otherwise it's misleading User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can I rename an image file? I can change the descriptions and regular name. Macrophyseter | talk 23:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the move button on the top right corner (should be under the More tab) and be sure you're logged into your Commons account and are viewing the file on the Commons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've requested a change in file name and corrected the misidentification of the two pictures. Macrophyseter | talk 02:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New Cretoxyrhina feeding on Pteranodon paper[edit]
With nice free images that can be used here:[6]FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Macrophyseter, I think the next course of action here would be WP:peer review (which should usually be done before first time FAC nominations). FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2019 (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]
It would seem that the study supposedly published in 2013 titled Vertebral morphology, dentition, age, growth, and ecology of the large lamniform shark Cardabiodon ricki, was published in 2015 after the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica link, can anyone explains me this ?Amirani1746 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cretoxyrhina_mantelli_e_Protosphargis_veronensis.JPG){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cretoxyrhina_mantelli_vertebrae_and_teeth.JPG){kind=link}