Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Painted turtle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Painted turtle

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have begun serious work on this article a few weeks ago and now feel like it is pretty sufficiently expanded. My goal ultimately is GA, but before submitting it for that I would like the wikipedia community to take a look at it. Specifically, I would like help/suggestions with grammatical flow/structure, correct capitalization of various things (like "western painted turtle" or "Western painted turtle"), and some comments regarding the (ridiculous short) conservation section (should it even exist for a species that is of "Least Concern?").

Thanks to all, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Automated text(edited) from peer reviewer
  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead was too long. I've condensed it a little bit.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Could you point out a specific sentence or couple of sentences that is/are new information?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chrymesmys is a monophyletic genus". Seems this maybe because of typo 'Chrymesmys'/'Chrysemys'? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed. Good catch. Btw, do the drop down things for the tables help...hurt...even matter?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added about a dozen or so...more to follow.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • I'm about half way through the article removing "fluff." Although I'm finding that some is necessary, particularly where it is stated that the numbers are hard to determine (specifically with age distribution within populations).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A complete copy-edit is immanent. I'll ask someone who owes me a favor. :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! I will begin work immediately.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance:

  • The four pics in the first section should be redistributed. The text looks like a newspaper column, is uninviting, unprofessional, and is difficult to read.
  • I know...I've been chewing on how else to do this (four subspecies make for messy formatting issues).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead can be more specific especially about its range. Does it live in the deserts of the southwest? The lead gives the impression it lives in just about every corner of the USA. Does it? Be more specific. Some people will never read beyond the lead. What plants and animals does it eat? Be more specific. What animals prey upon it? Mention the chief predator if possible and a few others.
  • So I've got one person telling me more specificity in the lead and another two telling me less? I'll leave for now until more arguments for either side emerge.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Some people will never read beyond the lead. It's not necessary to list every predator but certainly the principal predator should be listed and the reader should be made aware that it is prey for birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. "Animal" for a casual reader might suggest other mammals only. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you want more than the bit you added to be included in the lead?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables interfere with the flow of the article and there are too many of them. Most people will never read these. They're very unattractive. See if you can incorporate the material into the text.
  • Again, I know :-(. Formatting of images and tables has/will be difficult with this article. What do you suggest should be done...putting the information in the text seems like it would make for choppy text, although perhaps no more choppy than some of the sections already?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some big chunks of text can be divided into sections. I've done this for "Predators" and "Diet". Diet is one long paragraph and can be broken up into several.
  • Diet has been broken up into two paragraphs: the first dealing with the general information and the second with each subspecies' preferences.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thanks so much! (p.s. specific suggestions about formatting images and tables would be awesome!!)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a chance something like an "in culture" section could be created? Does the painted turtle figure in Native American religion or stories? Did Native Americans use the shell for anything? Isn't there a turtle clan among the Iroquois? What about American settlers? Was the turtle eaten? Is it used as a fishing lure? Is the turtle mentioned in American literature or children's stories? What about the Uncle Remus stories? Has it ever been the subject of a tv documentary or show like "Wild Kingdom"? Did Audubon depict the turtle in his collections? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh...I was fearing someone would ask this. I could add something like a "relationship to humans" section (or maybe add it to conservation) where I describe that it was/is in fact eaten, but I don't think anything beyond that would be really encyclopedic. The research I've done shares little more beyond that. Again, I point you to the Bog turtle where nothing of the sort is mentioned.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my way of thinking, those that passed it to FA should have asked for this sort of section on the basis of encyclopdeic comprehensiveness. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pic in the Infobox is not completely loading. I only get the top two thirds. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still having this problem? It loads fine for me...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "Relationship with humans" section would be a good choice. At one time the young of these poor creatures were painted bright colors and sold in pet shops and department stores around the US. Of course they died within days of being bought. Are there laws today protecting these animals? Are they sold as bait? Are they sold as pets? I can think many questions I'd like to see answered in this article. There's a 1988 novel called Painted Turtle about a Native American woman who crawls about on all fours and pokes her head out like a turtle. Are these turtles exported for any reason? Are they eaten as a delicacy outside the USA? Some animal articles have such sections. This is an encyclopedia that attempts to be comprehensive and such a section is appropriate. An article on the Bald Eagle would be remiss in not mentioning that the eagle is the national bird and is depicted on the dollar bill, the seal of US and elsewhere. An article on bison would be remiss that failed to mention the great massacres of the animal in the 19th century to starve Native Americans. An encyclopedia is something more than a biology textbook. I would consider "Relationship to humans" a major aspect of the topic and would have trouble passing any article at GA or FA that didn't include such a section. Such a section can only enhance an article. The Bald Eagle article has a long Relationship with humans section and the article is an FA. The American Black Bear article also has a long Relationship section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the second paragraph of Conservation-"Despite this, currently there are no laws protecting the painted turtle." That story about turtles being painted and sold in stores is sad, but how can you be sure those were Chrysemys picta? Do you have credible sources that say this? I'll look into the illegal pet trade thing shortly. Certainly there are animals out there that must contain a section discussing its relationship to humans: bald eagles because they are a symbol of American freedom and in the past we've decimated their population. Painted turtles are abundant, something I've said in the Population section ("Within its range and preferred habitat, the painted turtle is almost always the most abundant species of turtle.[21]"). I have humans' impact on their survival, which I think is enough, after I get around to including the bit about them being eaten (as far as being eaten abroad...I would, although no literature I've seen discusses this, assume they are not since they're only found in the U.S. and Canada). The Black Bear article is rated C-class by 3 of the 5 projects that are working on it, so why should I adopt something from it has when the painted turtle article is rated B-class?
I don't mean to seem militant, but I have serious concerns about putting this sort of section in this particular article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The American black bear article is rated B class by the Mammals project and, no disrespect intended to the other projects, that's the one that counts. Well, don't develop such a section, it's no matter to me. You asked for the peer review. I'm just trying to help. You might ask for a collaborative effort on this section, (ie) let someone else research and write it. Such a section can only enhance the article not damage it. Many many articles appropriately have these Relationships with humans sections. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take back what I said about that article...it was harsh. I realize and am grateful that you are trying to help (which you are, despite all I've said). Your comments have led me to add content to the conservation section and to make the lead more encompassing in certain places. I asked for the peer review for specific reasons ("Specifically, I would like help/suggestions with grammatical flow/structure, correct capitalization of various things (like "western painted turtle" or "Western painted turtle"), and some comments regarding the (ridiculous short) conservation section"), thus this time around, I wasn't so much concerned with content as I was other things. I probably should have stated this earlier, but what I really want is an article as close to the Wood turtle article as I could get: concise, to-the-point, comprehensive, and well-formatted. I'm sorry for my hostility, but in past articles I've had some horrifying experience with the "In-culture" section. Perhaps if I shoot for FA I will do more research on the topic.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible typos
  • What is 'monyphyletic' species? A typo perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mm...not a typo. Monophyly is a condition in taxonomy where (at least I thought) a classification, such as a species, is the only member of the classification above it (in this case a genus). However the article does such a bad job of explaining it that I don't even know if I'm correct. This page also explains it...however I'm still left a little confused.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, you said it's not a typo but then talk about another word. So it seems 'monyphyletic' is a typo then of 'monophyletic' Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'subspecie', is that correct? Is it not subspecies or sub specie. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. After checking the Subspecies article I realize I was wrong. I've changed them all to "Subspecies."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Map

A map of distribution would be nice as some point. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's US and Canada only. check out this and this. Is that related. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A map is essential for understanding this turtle's distribution (explaining it with words is almost impossible). One is in the making, although progress is slow going. The other two links is I believe this turtle (Emydura Subglobosa), a different species.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviations
  • C. p. bellii
  • C. p. dorsalis
  • C. p. marginata
  • C. p. picta

I don't understand why 'Chrysemys picta' is abbreviated to 'C. p' or 'C. picta'. Expand all occurrences perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a subspecies is mentioned, for instance C. p. dorsalis, than the genus and species name are both abbreviated. However, when the species in general is discussed, C. picta is usually used (I haven't seen C. p. before). I'll scan the article to make sure this is consistent.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understand, but I am wondering how the casual reader is expected to know this. Maybe there could be some link to explain species & subspecies abbreviation scheme. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I don't know exactly how a link like that would be incorporated, but this subsection explains it pretty well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the issue on the taxobox because a solution to the general understanding would be better then a specific solution in this article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for doing that. Ultimately, it would be nice if people understood what the heck the article was talking about!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a non-issue. The casual reader is smart and can figure out what the abbreviation refers to, especially in the context of the taxobox where the genus Chrysemys and the species C. picta are mentioned and the relationship - subspecies - is clearly pointed out. What is common practice, however, is a link in the taxobox to the subdivision rank, e.g. | subdivision_ranks = Subspecies, where it currently is not linked. A click of that would bring you to an article that mentions abbreviations in the context of that taxonomic rank. I think that's all that's needed. Rkitko (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great, thank you. Subspecies has been linked in the taxobox.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Northern painted turtle
  • 'It has been found that northern painted turtles produce larger but fewer clutches.'

We have 4 subspecies: Western, Eastern, Southern, and Midland painted turtle and now Northern painted turtle?

  • No, but I could see how that could be confusing. I changed it to: "It has been found that painted turtles living in the northern reaches of its range produce larger but fewer clutches."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not part of this review perhaps someone may like to check Kansas turtles, perhaps it could be cleaned up or sent for deletion? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of other article like this. I hope there are none, but I don't really know. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference info

Could the reference currently #53 - 'Ernst, Carl H., Roger W. Barbour, and Jeffrey E. Lovich. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1994', have a page number with it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it and replaced it with another (I believe its the same book, just the citations were different). It's now current ref #21, page 294.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Random...but

SunCreator, I have a favor to ask. Could you find the code here that matches the color of the tables within the dropdown menus and make the drowpdown menus the same color? I'm color blind don't you know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's #cfcfff. It looked fine before really, but I adjusted as requested. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. It looks great. By the way, do you think the dropdown menus help at all with the structure of the article (I mean as far as everyone's concerns are...concerned)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General request to reviewers: please don't subdivide the page using level 3 headers, because they disrupt the WP:PR page. Thanks - I have adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contemplating a GA submission

Are there any other questions/concerns with the article? After the peer review I will likely submit for GA immediately.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. The many varied editor input to this review is likely to indicate the article is ready for GA. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SunCreator. I've seen great improvements in the article since putting it up for pr, thanks to you and all the other editors who were nice enough to give advice. I'll shoot for GA within the next few days (weekends make for free time) if no other problems arise. To GA!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Painted_turtle/archive1&oldid=1138564440"