Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambulocetus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2021 [1].

Ambulocetus[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an amphibious whale from Pakistan about 50 million years ago which swam like an otter and behaved like a crocodile. It's one of the best known and iconic ancient whales.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing appears OK. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "novel by James Rollins featuring Ambulocetus" - source?
should I cite the novel?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the novel name the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DOI in FN1 is returning an error. What kind of source is this?
it's a jstor id not a doi   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: "Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg" appears to be a series name rather than a journal name. What is the publisher? Is this an authorized republication?
it says it was uploaded to researchgate by Thewissen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the publisher, and is Thewissen legally able to upload this to Researchgate? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on researchgate it lists the publisher as E. Schweizerbar, but on worldcat it gives Frankfurt am Main: Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. I always just assume if one of the authors uploads it to researchgate it must be legal, otherwise they'd be breaching some kind of contract with the publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to trust Worldcat over Researchgate. And yes, people breach contracts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll add as I go along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed you commented right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern river otter— You put "river", but link to otter, which includes the sea otter. Either the "river" or the link is wrong
there is no river otter article, it's just a disamb page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sea lion, palaeontology — link?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eocene cetaceans did not preserve limbs very well.—I assume you mean that the limbs did not preserve well, slightly odd sentence structure as is suggesting their active involvement. Also, some indication of why cetacean bones didn't fossilise well would be good
fixed wording. As for the fossil gap, no real explanation put forward for specifically cetaceans, but I'd assume it's because they evolved in a tropical region and tropics aren't exactly conducive for fossilization considering how efficient they are at recycling nutrients   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also change "The holotype preserved seven neck vertebrae" and similar prose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also estimated a length of roughly 300 cm (10 ft) long—"long" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, they also —"also" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the rest of the text, and I couldn't see any other issues. As for the holotype preserved..., I can see that you are avoiding the passive construction, but I'm not so bothered with the more abstract subject. With the one I commented on, I just had this image of these whales getting out their preserving pans... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent article, thorough and comprehensive. Well worthy of FA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I still support the nomination, I have a concern that the license for the Eocene map in the last section of the article is not valid. Blakey's maps have been previously deleted from commons because they are under an incompatible license, and I don't think the word of the guy who runs "thearmchairexplorer.com" is an authoritative source to say otherwise. I don't think that removing the image would detract much from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the ResearchGate link as it is probably copyvio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Maps © Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, Colorado Plateau Geosystems" but specifically makes the exception "Bottom map courtesy of Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, CCA-by-SA 4.0 License"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and only one support; this does not indicate a gathering consensus for promotion. Unless further general reviews are forthcoming in the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel[edit]

  • "from the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan roughly 48 or 47 million years ago" - This feels a little confusing - perhaps change to "from roughly 48 or 47 million years ago, in the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains one species" -> "It contains of one species"?
what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread "contains" as "consist". Sorry about that, the wording in the article is indeed correct. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was the first cetacean postulated to have preserved a suite of adaptations consistent with an amphibious lifestyle" - "postulated to have preserved" feels a little odd here, perhaps change to "postulated to have had"?
"...was the first cetacean discovered preserving a suite of adaptations consistent..."
Excellent! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus is classified in the group Archaeoceti" - Is Archaeoceti still in common usage despite its paraphyly?
it's common convention to split cetaceans into Neoceti (Mysticeti+Odontoceti) and Archaeoceti (all other more basal cetaceans)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "the family Ambulocetidae, which includes" -> "the family Ambulocetidae, which also includes"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of these" Perhaps it would be better to change this to something like "Because of these features" to clarify that this is not just about the eyes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth it to gloss pachyostoic in the lead.
that's the point of the word "heavy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My one concern about that is its placement, as "heavy, pachyostoic" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're referring to the same thing (like "narrow, streamlined" immediately before this). However, my perspective may be somewhat skewed as I'm relatively familiar with the jargon (and perhaps overly worried about explanations), so I'm fine with just letting this be unless anyone else raises an objection. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments all are about the article's lead. I look forward to continuing to read this article (also, it's cool to see a taxon as iconic as Ambulocetus at FAC)! I hope to go through the discovery section later in the day or sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "proximal tibia" Perhaps change to "proximal portion of a tibia"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An hour later, Arif discovered the limbs" I don't entirely understand this, as the femur and tibia are part of the limbs, as far as I know. Perhaps "discovered more of the limbs"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "HGSP" stand for?
Howard–Geological Survey of Pakistan (i.e., the funders)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thoracolumbar series" - Might be good to explain what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales), and Neoceti descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic." -> "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After discovery," - What does this refer to? The discovery of archaeocetes, the discovery of Ambulocetus, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also closely allied with the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)." - The way this is said makes it sound like cetaceans and hippos don't belong in this group. Perhaps this could be changed to "Both lineages are members of the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the publication cited for the cladogram, but if the relationships of the three ambulocetid genera are shown in the source cladogram (and assuming they're not just in a polytomy), it could be interesting to show this on the cladogram.
they're only known from jaw fragments and date to about the same time, so I don't think there're any cladogram relating the members of Ambulocetidae with each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I have for the Taxonomy section! The Description section will be next (I may also review part of it later today). (I've also also clarified some of my points regarding the lead.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Define falcate, postglenoid foramen, paranasal sinuses, trigonid and talonid cusps, protocone, paracone, metacone
falcate is already described by where it is, added postglenoid, and paranasal sinus literally glosses itself in its own name. As for the cusps, it's better if they click on the hyperlink and go to the article and see this picture rather than me explaining it all in words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't falcate mean sickle-shaped, though? Or is "falcate process" here the actual name of the structure (as opposed to it just being a process that is falcate)? The rationale for the tooth cusps makes sense, and the added definition (for the postglenoid foramen) looks good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...have a falcate (sickle-shaped) process..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike Pakicetus but like later archaeocetes," - Not sure if another comma's needed after "Pakicetus" there
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The snouts for Basilosaurus" -> "The snouts of Basilosaurus"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mandibular symphysis of most mammals is at the midline of the jaw, but it extends much farther in archaeocetes;" - I think that I understand what this is getting at, but the two phrases don't seem to be talking about the same thing (presumably the mandibular symphysis is still located along the jaw's midline in archaeocetes unless they've got asymmetrical mandibles). Perhaps rephrase as "The mandibular symphysis of archaeocetes extends farther back in the the jaw than in other mammals"? Might also be worth it to gloss mandibular symphysis
that is the gloss   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the mandibular symphysis where the mandibles fuse, though? I can't find mention of this in the paragraph. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's why it encompasses the midline of the jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coronoid process of the mandible (where the lower jaw connects with the skull)" - Does the coronoid process actually connect to the cranium? This kind of makes it sound like the coronoid process is the jaw joint (although I might just be incorrectly applying reptilian anatomy to mammals here...)
well it forms part of it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review of the first two parts of the description section, sorry that it's a little later than I planned on doing it. I should be able to go through the rest of the description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "spinous and transverse processes (which jut upwards and obliquely from the centrum)" - I'd replace "centrum" with "vertebral body" in this instance, as that's more understandable to the average reader. Centrum should probably be glossed on the next mention
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss "capitular facets"
that's the point of "on the top margin of both the frontward and tailward side to join with the ribs"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype preserves 26 ribs, though it is thought to have had 32 in life" On each side, or in total?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebrae, the transverse processes of S1 are smaller than those of L8, and form a robust sacroiliac joint with the hip." I think that this should be split into two sentences in some way, as the second part doesn't seem to have much relevance to the other three sacrals.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "longer-than-broad" Are hyphens used in this phrase?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there measurements for the radius and ulna, if they're complete?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dorsolaterally (from left to right, and leaning towards the head)" Doesn't dorsolaterally refer to left to right and upwards (as opposed to forwards)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The widening of the ischial width" This feels a little redundant, perhaps "The widening of the ischium"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The femur measures 29 cm (11 in), which is similar to the presumably cursorial mesonychid Pachyaena." In shape or size?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for the Description section. I'll go over Paleobiology tomorrow, and, with any luck, Paleoecology on Thursday. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "though probably did not have the agility to commonly consume them." Might be better to use "catch" instead of "consume", as that seems to be what agility would be needed for.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "much like modern river otters including the Pteronura, Lontra, and Lutra." -> "much like modern river otters including the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra." This is more consistent, though perhaps less readable, so feel free not to do this.
  • Optional: "So, using river otters as a model" - Remove "so"
  • "So, using river otters as a model, Ambulocetus was possibly a pelvic paddler—swimming with alternating beats of the hindlimbs (without engaging the forelimbs)—and also undulated (move up and down) its tail while swimming.[9] Like otters, swimming was probably powered by undulation of both the tail and the torso." I find this a bit confusing. This paragraph seems to be noting that the hindlimbs were a major force of propulsion, coupled with movement of the axial column, but the last sentence seems to imply that movement of the axial column was the only means of propulsion used.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pelvis and robust forelimbs could indicate Ambulocetus was capable of weight transfer (walking) on land" Why not just use the simpler term ("walking") here?
does a sea lion walk persay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean (they sort of can, but definitely not very expertly). Perhaps something like "movement" or "locomotion" might work better for glossing weight transfer then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"capable of venturing onto land"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use their heavy, osteosclerotic ribs as ballasts." I'm pretty sure that "ballast" is uncountable (not needing the "s", though I might be wrong about this)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, a lot of the change to the external auditory apparatus occurred between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus." Not sure if "Nonetheless" is needed here, as nothing that would seem to contradict this was stated before.
contrasted with "but is smaller than later archaeocetes and toothed whales"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized that I somewhat misunderstood this (I misread it as just being about the changes between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, not the overall change in whale evolution as a whole). On account of that, "nonetheless" does indeed make sense. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some comments on the Paleobiology section above. One other thing I've thought of: the "Torso" section of the Description also discusses the neck and tail, which are not part of the torso. Perhaps it should be renamed? I'm struggling to think of what it could be changed to and still reference ribs, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as opposed to the icehouse climate of today, so, in general, areas were much warmer than today" Not sure if the "than today" is needed at the end
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" It should be explained what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The waters off the western coast seem to have featured upwelling and low-oxygen." Not sure if "low oxygen" needs to be hyphenated
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These beds alternate with showing marine deposits." As opposed to terrestrial deposits? It might be clearer to phrase it as "These beds alternate between showing marine deposits and" the other type of deposits.
it is as opposed to terrestrial deposits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A redbed underlies this layer, followed by grey, green, and purple freshwater mud, silts, sandstones, and limestone. These beds alternate with showing marine deposits. The formation begins with 10 m (33 ft) of grey and green mud, silt, and sandstone, containing two bivalve beds near this locality." I find this a little confusing - is the lowest part of the formation part of the series of beds described by the previous sentence, or is it located above/below them?
the key words are "near the locality"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What exactly does this mean?
the first shell bed is usually 1 shell deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as in there's only room for one shell between the top and bottom boundaries? I was wondering if this had something to do with index fossils. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in the shell bed is usually a shell thick, as opposed to 20 shells thick. Much like how xyz mineral layer is a meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upper Kuldana Formation may be contemporaneous with the Subathu Formation." Are Ambulocetus or other archaeocetes also found in the Subathu Formation? This feels a little random.
Subathu is terrestrial so it has a lot of rodents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing to grasp how it's connected to Ambulocetus, though. Is it directly connected to the Kuldana Formation, or just laid down at the same time? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it was laid down at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there multiple formations with Lutetian deposits, though? Why mention this one in particular? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fish Stephanodus," Might be nice to add a more specific group in front of "fish"
"pycnodontid fish" isn't that elucidating   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link crocodiles. Turtle should be linked on first mention as well (which is under Hearing)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify that Anthracobune is an anthracobunid?
not the most helpful descriptor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained what anthracobunids are further up in the article though, though not Anthracobune itself. Currently there's no descriptor in front of it, and while the reader could draw the connection between the two terms, I think that it's probably safest to clarify it here (as taxonomic names can be misleading). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other archaeocetes are:" Might be nice to specify that these archaeocetes are from the same geological unit. I'd also use "include" instead of "are:" but this latter part is just preference and therefore totally optional.
include implies it's an incomplete list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I should probably remember that for the future in my own writing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the novel listed under See Also really needs to be there, as it doesn't have an article and the single paragraph devoted to it on the author's page doesn't mention Ambulocetus.
Ambulocetus is central to the plot, and there's not enough other material for a pop culture section, so See also seems perfect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has it had a major impact on the perception of Ambulocetus in popular culture though? Unless its impact has been mentioned in a reliable source, I'd be inclined to remove it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if it had a significant impact then there'd be a pop culture section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if the novel doesn't have a significant impact, then why add it at all? While Ambulocetus may not have a huge presence in fiction, there definitely are other works of fiction that feature other taxa in just as great prominence, and with some (such as house mice or Tyrannosaurus) listing these would effectively flood their articles with single line mentions of books. Since we wouldn't do that there, I don't see why we would do it differently here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have to take into account scope, like you wouldn't talk about the molar cusps of Smilodon but you would for a taxon only known by teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still would disagree here. I won't deny that dental anatomy carries much more weight for, say Pectinodon than Gobivenator, as that is the sole basis for the former's existence as a distinct genus, but I'm unconvinced that such reasoning applies to pop culture stuff (instead, I see it more as why we wouldn't go into specific details of troodontid postcranial anatomy in Pectinodon). Elasmosaurus and Allosaurus, for instance, have been featured multiple times in popular culture but do not have popular culture sections or any appearances in fiction listed, simply because, presumably, there just isn't enough on this topic in published sources to warrant this. However, I think that this may be more of an issue of editing philosophy, and am willing to let it drop unless other editors bring it up (though this general topic of pop culture stuff could, perhaps, warrant discussion at the project page sometime). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all from me! This has been an interesting read. Hopefully these comments have been helpful! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've responded to some of the above comments. Additionally, I found one more minor thing: Mangroves should be linked in the article body. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slate Weasel, I believe that your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will support now (sorry for my belatedness, life got rather busy over the past few days)! One thing that I meant to mention before but forgot to is the reference to the orange crates in Discovery. I find that little details like these can really make the article quite memorable and enjoyable! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time to review. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd that there's a section called "head", when it is only about the skull, and all other palaeontology articles call it skull.
  • Perhaps a photo of just the skull would be better in the section about it:[2]
added
  • A bunch of terms (excluding the cladogram) are duplinked.
I found 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tibia and femur is still duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other specimens initially found" Have others been found since?
none that I can see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this[3] another specimen or a cast of the holotype? It shows the bones in the position they were found, which may be interesting to show.
there's copyrighted artwork behind it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it's actually showing because that's not the complete holotype (maybe all that was known by the time it was described?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The German text on the window says the bottom is the skeleton as it was found and the hanging is in swimming posture. It is interesting to show how the bones were found. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mohammad Arif and Hans Thewissen" Occupations andn nationalities? You give it for people mentioned further down.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to recover land mammal fossils in the Kala Chitta Hills" Any background to this? Why there, and why specifically land mammals?
  • Explain femur at first mention (thigh bone).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tibia (at the knee joint)" I think you also need to specify this is a lower leg bone.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found the teeth near the end of the field season, which are characteristically" since the story is told in past tense, you would say "which were". I know they still exist, but it doesn't flow as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the rest skeleton" missing "of the".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the species name natans "swimming" The way this is written, you need "means" in there.
no it doesn't "The genus name comes from Latin... and the species name..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The formation is constrained" Name the formation again, this is long after your first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Lutetian stage" State it is Eocene too.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other specimens initially found were HGSP 18473 (a second premolar), HGSP 18497 (a third premolar), HGSP 18472 (a tail vertebra), and HGSP 18476 (lower portion of a femur)." This is written as if they belonged to different individuals, are they from the holotype specimen, just with different numbers?
those were listed under "referred materials", separate from holotype   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so there are more than one individual involved after all. But the intro still says "It is known primarily from a single skeleton which is about 80% complete". FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this is still a true statement, it is primarily known from the 80% complete skeleton and not these 4 other isolated elements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, some more elements of the holotype's jawbone were identified." Discovered in the field, or among the already collected fossils?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a partial skeleton initially discovered preserving a partial skull" One "partial" could be replaced by "incomplete" to avoid repetition.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" Add "prior to the discovery of Ambulocetus" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a hypothesised link between cetaceans and the Paleocene mesonychids" This is not evidence, so you should state it on its own like "and a link between x and y had been hypothesised".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either" What is the first citation mark for?
typo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image[5] that shows Ambulocetus from a new angle (front) along with another primitive whale could nicely fill the white space next to the cladogram.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph under Discovery is entirely about evolution. I think it could either be moved under classification, or there could be a subsection called evolution.
it's more about significance than evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti" Link these clade names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyletic" Add it is an unnatural group.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon species description, Ambulocetus was" You could say original description instead to make it clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their somewhat similar physiology" I think what you mean is morphology.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest identified cetacean is the ambulocetid Himalayacetus" You should make it clear this was named after Ambulocetus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no available cladogram that shows the genera within its family? What is its closest relative?
no since the other 2 are only known from fragments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the holotype of Pakicetus attocki" Why full binomial once?
there are multiple species of Pakicetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or comparison, the holotype of Pakicetus attocki may have been 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) long.[4] In 1996, they estimated weight" Since the last genus you mention is Pakicetus, it is unclear whose weight you mention afterwards.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, Gingerich estimated a weight of 720 kg (1,590 lb), similar to modern cetaceans, based on vertebral size." Not sure what this means. By comparing with modern cetaceans?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems extremely WP:trivial to have a book without an article under see also, whose summary doesn't even mention this genus.
Ambulocetus is important to the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other archaeocetes which preserve this aspect" Aspect is a bit odd to use, element or part would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the base of the skull undulates both towards the front and the back of the head" It's a bit difficult to envision what this means. How does the source phrase it?
better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remingtonocetid snouts are quite narrow, which was clearly not the case for Ambulocetus." How is this known?
I don't understand the question, that's like asking how do we know 'Smilodon had saber teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it known the snout of Ambulocetus was not narrow if it is not preserved? I assume it is because the back of the jaws are wide, but could be stated. It could perhaps be helped by adding "The known part of the snout was quite broad, but the end of the holotype's snout is missing". FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we know a large portion of the snout, and it's effectively impossible that the very tip would have shrunk down and extended some more   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by wider gaps (diastema)" Since gaps is plural, you should use the plural of diastema, which would be diastemata.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus skeleton reconstructed with incisors" Why is it necessary to point this out in particular, when the whole snout is reconstructed? Is there any reason to believe it didn't have incisors?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one caption of artwork you say reconstruction, in another you say restoration. Both can be used, but it looks better to be consistent. You can also pipelink paleoaert, as some reviewers have trouble understanding those terms sometimes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some more answers left to earlier comments above I'd like responses to before continuing.
  • "Giant otter swimming at Tierpark Hagenbeck" Captions should establish their relevance to the text if it isn't apparent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Map of the Earth 50 million years ago" Likewise, you could add something like "around the time Ambulocetus lived".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have supported strong longissimus which" Add "muscles" after longissimus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by T8" A bit esoteric, I think at first mention of these abbreviations, you could state "the eighth thoracic vertebra" in parenthesis, then the reader will know what it means henceforward.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it is thought to have had 32 total in life" Why?
I'd assume comparison with mammals of similar size? It only says "A total of 26 separate ribs of the presumed 32 are preserved"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the side view" The is superfluous.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • State where the lumbar vertebrae are.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are bulbous on the tailward size" Side?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The surface where the vertebrae join" You could add "join each other" for clarity. Technically, it could also be where they join the ribs.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebra" Sate these are part of the sacrum, and where this is located.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now it says "at the sacrum, just before the pelvis", but since the sacrum is actually between the pelvic bones, this should probably be reworded.
fixed
  • "In life, Ambulocetus possibly had upwards of 20 tail vertebrae." How do we know?
It doesn't exactly specify, but I'd assume it's because C8 looks like what we'd expect a mid-series caudal vertebra to look like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "semi-pronated position" Could be explained.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus hindlimbs at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris" Isn't it a single hindlimb?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only have "Ribs and vertebrae" and "Limbs" sections, yet dicussion of the limb girldes is artbitrarily distributed across them. Instead, you could rename the last section to "limbs and girdles" and move the sternum info there. Or just have a single "postcranial skeleton" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which may have precluded the ability to break a bone" A bit unclear, break its own bone or bone of another animal?
"precluded the ability to crush bone"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, it most likely that" It is.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicates Ambulocetus required a large area for crushing (probably because it was crushing large items)" Reads like repetition/stating the obvious, could be rephrased?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rather common on the Indian subcontinent" on or around? If they lived in coastal areas?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in river deltas which were preserved in the Kuldana Formation" The deltas weren't preserved there, the formation was deposited by them, so it can be said to represent river deltas.
"which were recorded"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nasal canal has bony walls extending into the throat, used in crocodiles to keep the nasal airways open" Whose nasal canals? The rest of the text is about crocodiles, so if it's the canals of Ambulocetus, could be clarified.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus probably went after fish and reptiles when given the opportunity, though probably did not have the agility to commonly catch them." Double probably could be varied somehow.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we be told who has proposed the various ideas discussede under Palaeobiology? You only do this for "In 2016, Japanese biologists Konami Ando and Shin‐ichi Fujiwara" now.
it's all Thewissen (et al) to my knowledge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be stated at the beginning of paleobiology then, afterwards the reader will be able to infer it's the same citation following. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra" A bit confusing that you use a common name, then to generic names, you could say "the giant otter, and the species in the genera Lontra and Lutra" or similar.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and also undulated (move up and down)" You could be consistent in tense, "moved up and down".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the length of the known tail vertebrae, Ambulocetus may have had a long tail" Their length or the amount? The individual bones don't look particularly long.
Thewissen noticed the mid-tail vertebra is proportionally similar to mesonychians, and assumed Ambulocetus probably also had a mesonychian tail with a few long vertebrae in a rigid tail rather than a lot of short vertebrae in a flexible tail   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then concluded Ambulocetus could not walk on land, but that the study was limited by" seems like a connecting word is missing, you could say "but cautioned that the study was limited by".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is speculated to be related to the increasing size of the malleus bone in the middle ear." For the benefit of what function?
didn't specify, but it does show Ambulocetus had characteristically cetacean modifications to the ear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Locality 9209" This could get more context. Designated by who and when? During the 1992 exzcavation?
it didn't specify the naming convention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "silts, sandstones, and limestone Link these terms.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What does this mean?
it's one shell deep, like how a layer of (for example) limestone can be 1 meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transitioning to the Kohat Formation" State if this is younger or older.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group Archaeoceti—the ancient forerunners of modern cetaceans" Is this really correct to say, considering that group is now considered unnatural? The cladogram used here makes Archaeoceti contain modern whales, so if that is the currently accepted stance, it should be specified. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeoceti specifically includes the ancient forerunners of Neoceti, all modern cetaceans. No one would call a bowhead whale an archaeocete, but it's unavoidable in the case of a cladogram when you're handling non-natural groupings   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case Archaeoceti isn't an unnatural group. If the name is still used for a clade that includes modern whales, what is unnatural about it? It would be unnatural if it only included the ancestors, but not the descendants. It is possible that there are different uses of the term y different authors, but this should be determined. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you misunderstood. Archaeoceti excludes all modern cetaceans. All modern cetaceans are classified into Neoceti. Neoceti is most commonly understood to have evolved from Archaeoceti. It's like how Homo evolved from Australopithecus, leaving Australopithecus by convention paraphyletic.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the included 2010 cladogram indicates, though. I'll have a look at the source. Paraphyletic groups are often redefined or synonymised these days, as happened with for example Prosauropoda or Pseudosuchia. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, it looks like the cladogram here misrepresents what the cladogram in the papers actually show. Uhen 2010 for example does not show a clade called Archaeoceti, he ownly indicates where Archaeoceti and Crown Cetacea are placed in the cladogram. Same with this[6] paper. So the cladogram here needs to be modified to reflect that, only using the clade names used in the paper. By the current logic, "Crown Cetacea" would also have to be shown as a clade, when it is just a label shown above the cladogram in the paper. It may be possible to colour code clades in the cladigram with labels, as in the paper, but I don't know how, perhaps Jts1882 or Lythronaxargestes does. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if you want it resolved quickly, just remove Archaeoceti as a clade. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is this what you were looking for?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put |bar1 for the intervening clades for the bracket to continue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! There seems to be some error, as I can see "{{cladogram|title=Ungulata|align=left|width=800|caption=Family tree according to American vertebrate palaeontologist Mark Uhen, 2010[7]|cladogram=" in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain hyperflexion and cursorial.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tibia and femur are still duplinked.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Hi FunkMonk, I believe that your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the relatively serious cladogram issue mentoned last, maybe my ping to Jts1882 or Lythronaxargestes didn't work, so trying again... FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get an earlier ping (you can't edit them in and there are a few other restrictions). It's not exactly clear what is wanted as the cladogram has changed during the discussion. I've added a couple of |state1=double for paraphyletic groups and can colour the crown cretaceas or crown mysticeti and odcntoceti separately as desired. Looking at Uhen et al (2010) there should also be stem Neocetis as well as the crown groups so I've added that and labelled crown Cetacea. The label could be replaced by a bracket on the right if preferred, which would compare Archaeocetes and crown cetaceans as in Fig 1 of the paper. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue seems to have been fixed, as per the comments above, so I'll leave it up to Dunkleosteus77 if they want further changes to make it more in line with the paper. I wonder if there should be a "Crown Cetacea" label too. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neoceti is more or less "crown cetacea" barring hypothetical basal Neoceti depending on your classification schemes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has all come together nicely, but since you ask, I have one question; the two life restorations show the nostrils in two different places, one at the front of the snout, and one at the sides further back. Which do we think is more accurate, if any, and should one be adjusted accordingly? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the nostrils weren't preserved in Ambulocetus. The 1st reconstruction plays off Pakicetus/similar and the second off Rhodocetus/similar, so in this instance, to each their own   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ambulocetus/archive1&oldid=1020065004"