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
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
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
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 30 March 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Here it also seems odd that you give etymologies separately from (and before) the text that presents individual species. It would flow better if you simply present a species and then give the meaning of the name in the same paragraph. It's a weird start, stop, and rewind sequence now.
"However, these finds are not published." Might say "not peer reviewed" or "validly published" instead.
Fixed.
Might be nice to "commission" a restoration of this animal at WP:paleoart, and perhaps a size diagram.
I already privately requested a restoration of this shark to Damouraptor a few months ago, and he has shown me a basic initial sketch exactly one month ago. However, I haven't heard from him since regarding the restoration.
He recently contacted me back with an update on his sketch, which he only needs to color now. I'm guessing he's going to be finished on the restoration in the coming weeks.
"Cardabiodon fossils have been found in Canada, the midwestern United States, England, West Australia,[4] and Kazakhstan[2]. The fossil record is very sparse but currently consists of teeth, vertebrae, and scales, which would be usual as the cartilage in sharks do not preserve well during fossilization, although vertebrae may sometimes be preserved if hardened via calcification.[9]" Info like this should be under taxonomy or paleoecology.
Moved under Antitropical distribution
"which would be usual" Kind of strange wording, rather it is normal/common, and not "would be".
Fixed.
"was covered by teardrop-shaped enameloid placoid scales clad with 6–8 parallel grooves that each possess kneels" Unneeded change from past to present tense.
Tense keeps stumping me
"being common in fast-swimming sharks like Cretoxyrhina" Seems like a strange comparison, since the speed of Cretoxyrhina itself would only be deducted form comparison with living species? Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare with such here too?
Changed to lamnids.
"were thicker than other large predatory mackerel sharks" Thicker than those of, I would assume.
Fixed.
"The generic name Cardabiodon is an assemblage of the location name Cardabia, a cattle station in West Australia, and the Ancient Greek ὀδών (odṓn, "tooth")." This would seem to make more sense after you introduce the discovery of the taxon. So, state it was discovered, who it was named by and when, then give the etymology of both names.
"from both a holotype and paratype" Both seems superfluous.
Changed to type specimens
" Siverson and another paleontologist Johan Lindgren" Another also seems very superfluous. It goes without saying.
Cut
"as transitional fossils between the two have been found" This seems pretty significant and could be elaborated on somewhere.
Moved to Classification and evolution. Unfortunately, not much is really elaborated on regarding the transitional fossil(s) in scientific literature. I wrote about the fossil, its features, and its implications on the chronospecies.
"along with another shark, Parotodus in it" You need a comma after Parotodus, and you should also state if it is prehistoric.\
Fixed.
"Another shark, Dwardius" Likewise, you could also state age of both.
Fixed.
"and a potential of being synonymous genera by some paleontologist" Pretty convoluted wording, you could just say "and the possibility of them being synonyms has been raised" or similar.
Fixed
"There has been a to the proposal" Something wrong here.
I have a gut feeling I may have accidentally dragged a selected text from somewhere to there.
"by noting contradictory evolutionary trends between the two sharks" Like what? And who proposed the synonymy?
Fixed
"a reduction of tooth files" What is a "tooth file"?
Reworded
Since you now duplicate the line drawing, I wonder if the photo of C. venator teeth would look better in the infobox.
Done
You list synonyms in the taxobox, but the circumstances around them should also be discussed under taxonomy.
Remember to redirect all binomials and synonyms, I did so in this case.
I'll try to rememebr to do that in the future. But what if a synonym also represented two valid species? Pseudoisurus tomosus is also a synonym for Dwardius.
"symphysial, anteriors, intermediates, and lateroposteriors" I wonder if you cold explain more plainlt where these locations are at first mention of each term.
Fixed.
"more generic mackerel shark dental designs" Designs seems a little odd in this context. Morphologies? Configurations?
Changed to "dental structure"
"caution due its inconsistencies" Due to.
Fixed.
"which was expressed with some caution" Is a reconstruction really "expressed"?
Fixed incorrect context.
I wonder if "Life history" really belongs under description? Maybe there could be a palaeobiology section which also goes into hunting, swimming, and so on?
I originally intended to create a paleobiology section, but I found too little information to support subsections in hunting, swimming, etc. I thought it would be rather awkward to have a paleobiology section have only life history, so I just stuck it in description instead. But right now, I recreated a paleobiology section, but I'm not sure if it's alright for a section to hold only a single subsection.
Every subject within paleobiology doesn't need a sub-section, though. I wonder if there is any info you have left out t avid making such subsections? The article does seems oddly devoid of info on for example hunting, swimming, and metabolism. FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked multiple times, but apparently no information regarding hunting, swimming, and metabolism I can find (Which does sound reasonable in a way considering there is few interest on the shark and it has a rather poor fossil record).
The intro seems pretty skimpy compared to the length of the article. Could probably be two paragraphs.
You could give some context for what a nursery area is.
Fixed.
"using the vertebra of three different preadult individuals" vertebrae, plural.
Fixed
"the vertebra of C. ricki suggested" Likewise.
Fixed
"was smaller than the three" The three what?
Fixed
"that have coexisted with Cardabiodon" Have is superfluous.
Cut
"and presumably may have been preyed upon by it as an apex predator." Weird sentence structure. How does one get preyed upon as an apex predator? I know what you're getting at, but the grammar doens't make sense.
Fixed.
Perhaps the upper part of fig 3 here[1] is useful? Best free photo of C. ricki teeth it seems.
Added.
Maybe fig 2 would also be good to show under life history to give a visual idea of how age is determined.
I believe fig 2 may be a bit extraneous, and fig 5 also gives a similar visual idea but is already on the article. I put fig 3 under life history.
I haven't been able to do much activity on Wikipedia for a long while, I probably should have communicated better if an issue like this would occur. Although I'm still going to have difficulty in Wikipedia activity, I'll be continuing to make edits. However, for now activity will be quite slow, I predict. But I think I can still get this article done.
FunkMonk I think I am still able to finish this GA review in its entirety. My schedule has been a bit relaxed for the next few days, so I think I might be able to finish it during those times. Also, I've finished addressing the last few comments. Macrophyseter | talk06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
