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 SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [1].

Bog turtle[edit]

Bog turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I and a group of high school students have been working on this article since the middle of September 2009, and we feel it is time to pull the trigger on it. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images These should alternate left and right (as far as possible) to balance the article, Faces generally point into articles, so a file like File:Bog_Turtle.jpg should be in the infobox. For nature articles I would prefer a geographic map rather than the political map File:Bog_turtle_distribution_map.svg being used. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a geographical map is absolutely critical, but, if it proves to be in the future, it shall be changed. Thank you for the feedback.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have left them a message anyway.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After several days, someone popped in and explained that a geographical map wouldn't make sense in this article because the bog turtle exists only in the eastern U.S.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bog turtle is the smallest species of turtle in North America.[6][7][8][9] The adults weigh approximately 4 ounces (110 g) when fully grown.[10] Its head is a dark brown color that matches the shell;[9] however, it has a bright yellow, orange, or red spot on each side of its neck.[2][6][11][12]
  • I don't think this is so unnecessary. Descriptions of colorations in animals often vary among sources, so it is critical to consult multiple sources to get a handle on what the consensus in the literature is; and if you do so, you should document that you used those sources. Ucucha 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn as well, I have removed two of the four citations to these two statements, leaving the two I found to be most reliable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* The bog turtle lives out its life almost exclusively in the wetland where it hatched. It has a life span of 20–30 years, although many do not live that long.[16] The turtles have a higher life expectancy in captivity, where they are protected from many of the natural and man-made hazards encountered in the wild. The Bronx Zoo's on-display population contains several individuals 35 years old or more, the oldest known bog turtles.[46] The Zoo's population of bog turtles has successfully sustained itself for more than 35 years.[46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this passage reads smoother now. Thank you for your comment.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Also, it still says "discovered" in the intro. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would move that phrase to later in the intro, as generally you want the first sentence in an article to define what it is, e.g. "The bog turtle is a..." --

Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first few sentences have been reworded to meet this standard.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a URL at the bottom of this page that answers the question (I just don't know if it's reliable).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up the original name and author (Schoepf) in Google Books or something similar should give more reliable sources if you're unsure. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried this in several locations and turned up nothing. However, the webpage is a .org and it perfectly answers any taxonomic concerns. I don't know how to cite it however because there is no apparent author or...anything really. It would also address the concern directly below this one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a book that mentions it (near the bottom of the page). Note that Schoepff's original name was Testudo muhlenbergii, not Clemmys muhlenbergii. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, this is a great source. Who is the author?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be New Jersey State Museum. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my guess, but to cite it, I needed a last name, some new info has been added, I put the curator of the museum as the author.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been merged into one sentence with a single source.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "due to an alteration of the blotches on its head" -- "alteration of the blotches" = "different blotches"?

"because of a variation in the blotches on its head" -- this is not grammatically correct; do you mean that this variant's color blotches are different from regular bog turtles, or that it's more variable than regular bog turtles. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's something like this: "due to a difference in blotch pattern on the side of its neck?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Any information on how the blotches were different? -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the sources go into that much detail, all I was able to turn up was that due to the differences, a new species was declared for a few decades.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info from the source has been added to clarify this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually had an esteemed user comment that this was necessary, and I tend to agree. However, if it is deemed disruptive to the flow of the section, it will be removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still don't think it's necessary, but if you keep it you should move the parenthetical definition next to the word it's defining, rather than put it as a separate sentence within parentheses afterward. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Blancan stage was 4.75 to 1.81 million years ago. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I researched it a bit further and I am more confused than before, I don't think these will help the reader unless he or she is a geologist.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just putting down "Pleistocene" would be meaningless to a general reader. Also putting how long ago it was would be more useful. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some years (in parenthesis), but am unsure of formatting.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also add a time range to Rancholabrean. Also, you should use the time range for Blancan, not Pleistocene, since that's more precise. As for formatting, just make sure you're consistent across the usages. -- Yzx (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wait, the Blancan period is from 4,750,000 to 1,808,000 years BP and the Pleistocene is from 2.588 million to 12 000 years BP, isn't the Pleistocene more precise? Also, Rancholabrean years have been added.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've looked more carefully. Blancan should not be put in a parentheses behind Pleistocene, as that implies that the Blancan stage is a subset of the Pleistocene epoch when that's not the case. You should pick one or the other and give the range for it. -- Yzx (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed so that it just reads "Pleistocene" with its appropriate timeline.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still has the same issue: you give a list of states where it's "threatened", and a subset of those states where it's "endangered". Does that mean that in New Jersey, for example, it's listed twice as "threatened", and as "endangered"? -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't really understand. What is "similarity of appearance" and does that affect the designation of "threatened"? Is it similar to another endangered turtle and thus also protected just in case? -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't apologize, your concern is legitimate. I have clarified it a bit more with information offset in parenthesis. Also, some of this is explained in the "Northern and southern ranges" sub-section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have discovered that "similarity of appearance" is an expression used in the Endangered Species Act. I tried to find a useful wikilink, but failed, and I could not find a definition on the internet. I think Yzx's guess is probably correct, but clarification would be helpful here. Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more info about this has been added from a new source, I had to quote it because of ambiguity.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section deals with all the threats this turtle faces.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you're merging together two fundamentally different topics: natural predators are an issue of ecology, and human-caused threats are an issue of conservation. Most professional sources would not do this. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you recommend forming a new section called "Biological threats," (or something like that) putting all the natural threats in that section, and leaving the current "Conservation" section?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's only one sentence it would be best to merge it into another section; "Habitat", behind the list of plants it's found with, would work (though it'd be a bit odd), or you could rename "Diet" to something like "Interspecific interactions" and put it there. -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took some work, but these two sections ("Threats" and "Conservation") have been completely changed. I renamed the first "Natural threats," which, naturally, deals with the things found in nature that are a threat to the bog turtle. The "Conservation" section deals exclusively with human effects on the bog turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion of non-native species should be under conservation, as it's a result of human activity. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was meant here was its inability to adapt to a changing habitat (i.e. clearing of land, destructive construction of buildings etc.)
"slowness" implies that it is evolving, just not quick enough, in response to human-caused habitat alterations. The source does not support this. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would you mind pointing out where it says this. So much has been moved around I can't quite find it anymore (I need to find it to see what it's resource says). Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think it got removed at some point. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general:

  • This sentence has been rewritten to avoid the use of a comma in that instance. What other specific sections/sentences are missing commas or need attention?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. -- Yzx (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: why is Reproduction behind Threats and Conservation? Usually in field guides and such human interactions and conservation go last. -- Yzx (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Threats" should moved down, since "Conservation" follows immediately from it. -- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some more notes:

  • In all the confusion, I think this was changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed a significant amount of "population"s to either "groups" or "colonies." However, I am unsure if I caught them all.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more cases where "population" seems to refer to something other than the northern and southern populations:
  • "the populations often consist of fewer than 20 individuals"
  • The instances of "population" under Movement, where you seem to be talking about interchange between adjacent groups within either the northern or the southern population. You can get around this by referring to them as "subpopulations".
  • "an area known to support a small bog turtle population"
  • The last two I believe I corrected. After several sweeps of the article, I can't find the first.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"farmland near County Route 565 in Sussex County, New Jersey, an area known to support a small bog turtle population" -- there's still this one, as I assume you're talking about a colony in New Jersey, within the northern population. -- Yzx (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been done (btw, I see 20 as the number).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added another bit of research that I believe says the ranges overlap.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have two facts, one that says "Males move an average of 2.1 meters (6.9 ft) per day and females an average of 1.1 meters (3.6 ft)," and another that says "The vast majority of bog turtle movements are less than 21 meters (69 ft)."--These two things seem, at least to me, to make sense together. The second reinforces that relatively long-distant trips are rarer than shorter ones. Thus a turtle may travel 15 meters in one day, but a more average number would be about 1 or 2 meters. Is this what you meant?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yzx (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor issues remain, so I'm changing above to Support. Good job! -- Yzx (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry, I hadn't realized this was a problem. Thank you for telling me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Stunk photo is difficult to make out. At first I thought it was some sort of bird. Consider using the standard Skunk photo (File:Striped Skunk.jpg) instead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much clearer. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for User:Yzx's sixth concern, would this be a reliable source to help answer his question? http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/gmuhlenbergii/taxonomic%20history.htm
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'one of the smallest turtles in the world', this wording in the lead does not appear to be supported/referenced in the text. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been removed, I think one of us read that once and included it unreferenced (I can't find that info in the current refs).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in-line question concerning inbreeding has been changed to more match the sources words. Thanks for the support and compliment!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all of your help! :)--Merry Beth (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a reference to the statement that required one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I have changed the opening sentence of the movement section, awaiting feedback (and, let me say, your edits are vastly appreciated, thank you!).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest simply deleting it along with the in-line comment and the reference. The latter is given in full a few lines later it seems so nothing will be lost. Bye the way, once a reference is "named" there is no need to write it in full again. You just put <ref name=example/>, but don't forget the all important forward slash. Graham Colm (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry, I lost track. Which one?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section <!-- This opening has, I think, always been troublesome--> <!--The bog turtle moves for various reasons including to feed, mate, and protect itself from predators.<ref name="Lovich92">((Cite journal | last = Lovich | first = J. E. | last2 = Herman | first2 = D. W. | last3 = Fahey | first3 = K. M. | title = Seasonal activity and movements of bog turtles (''Clemmys muhlenbergii'') in North Carolina | journal = Copeia | volume = 1992 | issue = 4 | pages = 1107–1111 | year = 1992 | jstor = 1446649 ))</ref> -->. Graham Colm (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it has all been taken out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grammer haz been alwayz my wurst subjekt (thanks for fixing that, it was rather embarrassing).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • scientifically identified in — perhaps scientifically described from a Pennsylvania specimen
  • Changed to: "The first specimen was scientifically identified in Pennsylvania [...]"

:*Why have you departed from normal biology article practice, even for US species, of having international units first and local units in parentheses? Not consistent with painted turtle spotted turtle wood turtle either

  • I'm the one who advised to do it this way... sorry if it was incorrect. It made sense to me that if the distribution was US only, the leading units should be the US ones. Do you know if there's a MOS guideline about this, or other examples (of FAs)? Sasata (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an easy fix, but I tend to believe its more helpful as is...right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mos says In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always; for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1. This article sticks out like a sore thumb, inconsistent with even closely related biology articles. How is it helpful? This is a global encyclopaedia, and outside NAm most people would expect, and be more familiar with, international units especially in a science article. Giving a regional units priority in a science article seems strange, especially as contrary to what many Americans think, most English speakers are not Americans Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I caught them all. Before, I was following the Banker Horse article, which deals with an animal only found in North Carolina. Sorry for the mix up, hope it is correct now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't link US states
  • United States federal Endangered Species Act. — federal is redundant
  • The bog turtle was first identified in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — described again I think would be better unless you are sure that non-scientists eg the aboriginal population did not know this creature
  • In 1801, the bog turtle was initially named Clemmys muhlenbergii, or Muhlenberg's tortoise, in honor of Gotthilf Muhlenberg Who named it? Also in honor of its discoverer would be less repetitious.
  • bog turtles and wood turtles were found to be closely related — How and by whom?
  • Name added and info on the research, more on the individual can be included from the source if necessary.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bog turtle's closest relative is the wood turtle already been stated earlier
  • .43 to 3.29 acres (0.17 to 1.33 ha) for males and .16 to 3.11 acres — contra MoS, you need leading zeroes.
  • Holman — who he? No link or indication of whether he/she is an American scientist or British librarian
  • I did some general research and dug up some backround information: "The late J. Alan Holman, a paleontologist and herpetologist [...]" is now in the section. Does this need to be sourced?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images — I've removed the article name from the captions, per MoS, but you could say whether they are adults
  • This area in specific — is this English?
  • a fighting match — a fight
  • the bog turtle has a maximum life span of 20–30 years, although many do not live that long. — Average?
  • Now I'm confused — I meant give the average as well as the maximum. It's worrying that you have simply changed it so the maximum becomes the average, which is nonsense. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, it seemed like you looked it up and found a different answer than ours. I will change it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did more research and came up with two more numbers.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, you had life span and lifespan in the same sentence, I've made them both the single word, but change them both to the two-word form if you prefer, just needs to be consistent. Note that you have a frmatting problem with the ref for this, ref 37, which is coming up as a cite error in the references section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reed plants — Phragmites if that's what's meant, or just reeds
  • Changed to "reeds," source said "common reed."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. All taxonomy issues will be solved once the google book mentioned in an earlier discussion on this page gets correctly cited.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very nice improvement on this article! I'm glad to see these class projects continue. I only have a few comments:
Withdrawn: Due to uncivil comments and personal attacks made outside of this FAC by one of the editors involved, I am withdrawing from this review. My apologies to the nominator. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reworded the first sentence mentioned here and deleted the (unreferenced) second sentence. Thanks for the feedback!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've never really understood the proper course of actions when dealing with this...another opinion would be best before drastic changes are made.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the whole paragraph is cited to the same source, then one citation at the end is fine, and less distracting. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed quite a few, the article should be up to par in that respect now :).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still quite a few redundant references in the text. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed about ten more, I am unsure of what I should touch, because some are different page numbers.
  • It seems like there are some errors in the citation handling. I just looked at the second paragraph under "Evolutionary history" and noticed that the ref named "RosenbaumP1" includes multiple citations: ((Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=331)) and ((Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=337)) Each named ref needs to be unique, including page numbers. This needs to be fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the citations in this section have been removed save the last one (becuase they were all from the same source), which reads <name="RosenbaumP1">((Harvnb|Rosenbaum|2007|p=331))</ref>.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations look better, although now there is only one lingering problem: The last sentence in the first paragraph of "Natural threats" is unreferenced. Fix that, and my issues with citations will be resolved. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion of this would be a little overkill...don't you think (really specific information).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, some primary sources go a bit overboard on technical detail. However, it's worth reading the abstract, discussion, and conclusion for more mundane, yet useful, information. This article is talking about learning population structure. Even just a brief sentence about it would be useful. However, if you haven't see the whole article, it might be worth a look before you try using it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting abstract, but the info reads like a how to book.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it sounds like the article discusses detecting small, viable populations—something that would be beneficial to the article. See my comment under the next article if you need help accessing the full article. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you need help accessing a journal article so that you can read more than just the abstract, just make a request. Ucucha and Sasata help me with this all the time. We would rather be certain that the article is as comprehensive as possible than let it slide by because the nominator "thinks" the information is covered. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have some information in the article (under the "Evolutionary History" section) that is very similar to the info in this last article (from what I can gather from the 'abstract' at least).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the other articles? Has their information been covered? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. In case the nominators missed VisionHolder's question, has this info been incorporated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still sorting through them a bit, the fourth one has been used to good effect, the fifth has info already included.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the article looks very nice. Keep up the good work! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed around a number of them, it may still need some work.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments and support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a while ago, I sent the map makers the following links, asking them to create the map:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7164.html
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicalLeaflets/bog_turtle_Oct%2023.pdf
  • Looking back, I don't see much marking in that area... -_- (Thanks for the comments and support!) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: My support here is explicitly on style grounds, and I know nothing about the accuracy of the article and am not in a position to judge; if Ucucha's concerns below aren't addressed then the support is retracted, as I trust his judgement regarding reliability of sources on biology topics. – iridescent 13:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been changed so that it reads: "Bog turtles are sexually mature when they reach between 4 and 10 years of age (both sexes).[13]" That appears to be what the source is driving at.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are samples from only one section; please review prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Support; my very long list of issues has been addressed, and I think the article has been improved with a lot of interesting information. Ucucha 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose for now, pending resolution of issues listed below. Ucucha 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (and others listed on the article talk page Ucucha 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) (Moved resolved comments to talk Ucucha 20:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • This information was deadly difficult to locate on its own, I'm not sure more is even out there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some things remaining without which I don't think the article meets the criteria. Give it a few more days. Ucucha 13:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My student is still in hopes of reconciling any differences; the courtesy of extended time would be truly appreciated.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, he is in support (I probably didn't need to tell you that though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, they have been added, however I am unsure if the formatting is completely correct.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These numbers have since been changed, but from what I can dig up, the size simply varies between states.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the mammals (in the natural threats section) are in there and linked (birds...I don't know).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 13:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • These last three are, again, a little beyond the scope of the article, particularly the internal parasite one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently 12 and 30, but that may have changed again by the time you read this. Just search for "Turtle Conservation" on the page and you'll certainly find them. Ucucha 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are still there (refs. 11 and 27 at the moment). Ucucha 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did someone revert my edits? If you look at my edit summaries, I removed them...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you missed some. This is the version after you made those edits, and it still has some refs to these sources. Ucucha 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Turtle Conservation Project (previously #11) is gone, if it's still there than I think I am going about replacing them all wrong.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Environmental Defense.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref. 1 and 15 are both newspapers. Under certain circumstances they are reliable; however, a biology article - not so much. I suspect this information can be easily linked to a more authoritative source. I'm personally not a big fan of the Animal Diversity Web site either (ref 16). The referencing of an encylopedia with another encylopedia is not appropriate. This too, should be a quick fix. Good thing there are three of you assigned to this article?! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Ernstand & Lovich (2009) is a high-quality secondary source, and I agree that many (not all) of the omissions that Ucucha has listed on the talk page should be included in this article. Things like egg size, clutch size, details about behaviour, parasites, etc. are important aspects of the turtle's biology, and if the information is out there (conveniently summarized for us in the recent secondary source), then the Wikipedia article can't really claim to be "comprehensive" and "well-researched" without mentioning these aspects. That being said, this article is coming along nicely, and the extraordinary level of editor involvement in this FAC will mean that the final product will indeed be an example of our "very best work". Sasata (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sasata, I think we agree. My apologies for the mis-use of "primary", when describing the source; I was referring to "main" not intended to imply that it was "original research". A poor choice of terms on my part. I suspect that the text in question albeit a secondary source does little to summarize the primary research on which it was based - it simply restates it. For example a detailed listing of gut analysis from a randomly selected group of turtles specific to a certain location is absurd. They consume primarily insects supplememted with berries, but to suggest that in New Jersey, in August a turtle's gut analysis showed an elevated level of June Bugs - seriously.NYMFan69-86 may require some guidance as to what truly reflects a difficiency in content and what was merely listed because it was in one and not the other. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for my ignorance about some of the comments you are referring to, since I don't have time at the moment to review them. However, sometimes one needs to see the forest for the trees. The information Sasata mentioned should definitely be included, especially if covered in a secondary source. But if Ucucha or I point out a heavily detailed primary source, please browse over the article and look for the highlights. I've had to do that many times with the lemur articles both Ucucha and Sasata have reviewed. Sometimes a complex research articles can be covered in a single sentence. For example, "Studies in X, which also look at Y have shown Z about this species." We don't need to know the full details, especially since we have the citation. But it does tell the reader that studies concerning this topic have been done and that more information is available. To give a more specific example, in one of the sources I listed above, I believe it talked about capture methods to determine population structure. This could yield a very informative sentence when talking about conservation and studies pertaining to conservation efforts. I hope this helps. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be good for me, NYM. Congrats on authoring an excellent and informative article! Thanks for the explanation, Iri, although I will admit that I did not try to see what it looks like. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More