Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1

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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [1].

---

Painted turtle

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

• Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1

Nominator(s): NYMFan69-86 (talk) and TCO (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The painted turtle is the most widespread, numerous, turtle of North America. The "cardinal" of state reptiles, our turtle is also beloved in British Columbia, but, there, down to its last few thousands. Rated high importance by the Wikiherps, "Painted turtle" draws 500 daily views. To reward the knowledge-seeking hordes, we've noted special features of the animal's biology (e.g. supercooled blood that resists winter freezes) and mentioned the controversies in taxonomy and commercial harvesting. Come pin the star on the turtle!TCO (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Images - I would prefer File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg was tagged as freedom of panorama in Canada, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Canadian FOP situation summary on Commons, agree it pertains and covers us, so have added the template to the file page.TCO (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Belay my last. I think we might have an issue as it is a two-dimensional image. I'm actually researching the 1985 law now, and may need to cut the image. Update coming.TCO (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Update. Unless I learn differently, I'm going to cut the image in 24 hours (and remove the FOP tag and probably even get it culled from Commons); which is a shame as it is pretty and hits two different themes from the article, BC concerns AND road death). Let me leave it up for a day and see if I get any more input at Commons from experts there. I've read the Canadian statute on FOP and doubt it applies as this is not a structure. Wiki Commons policy talks about 2-D images being verboten, but I don't actually see that addressed one way or another in the Canadian statute. To me, this screams "fair use" as the idea that individuals taking a Polaroid of a traffic sign and sticking it in their sock drawer, or even newspapers publishing photos of traffic signs, are violating the law seems unlikely. That said, I think we may need to cut it to be wiki-compliant.

Let me know if you have any other advice to save the image. Finding the municipality and getting them to sign off might be an option—for the NH FG photos, I did write to NH. Hiring a lawyer for Canadian comon law review is probably too much expense for me, though. Also, if this is too much in depth discussion on the review page, not sure the protocol, we can take offline. TCO (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To me the image is 3D it includes the pole and environment as well as the sign, however this may be an incorrect interpretation! It won't stand up under our fair use policy for inclusion. I shall seek advice elsewhere. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I think it's a strong image as it was obtained from a wildlife biologist in BC, CA, and actually is designed to protect painted turtles (not some other turtles) and it is a break from all the wildlife shots (could do something hokey like a turtle on the road, or even a dead turtle, but I think the sign is more artful) and hits two points (BC issues and efforts to save pt, as well as road kill methods), plus it looks sweet. To me, seems fair use as I'm not setting up in the road sign business. Would think a newspaper would not be afraid to run the image in a story on painted turtles. But IANAL. And I realize we need to be pretty "Caeser's wife" with copyright at Wiki, especially with front page features.TCO (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Fair use. I think I can actually make a pretty good case for the fair usage. I read the 10 pillars and think I meet them. We have permission for the photo itself, just the only issue is the design itself on the physcial sign, so the comments about "could you go get a picture yourself" don't really apply. If I make a snap will still have same problem. It's being used to illustrate a point. It's NOT competing commercially with the original use of the media. I'm not making signs myself! It's in an article, etc., etc. My inclination is to try to save the image (follow the fair use procedure and add the No Gallery and all). But let me know what you think. I will definitely cut it, and article will just be a little less "brilliant", if it risks the star.TCO (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the information you are trying to convey that cannot be conveyed using text? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not needed in the sense of a schematic diagram. I think for someone who has never seen such a sign, like me before I had, it is useful to add to the experience, to bring something home more than just words do. That it is helpful for people to process information both visually and textually. But it's definitely not critical in the sense of a schematic for a complicated machine or something. If you think we should cut it, we will.TCO (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, I don't consider "useful" to meet this Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll just wait rest of today (had an inquiry at Commons) and see if anything comes out about the FoP or otherwise, and then if not, I'll cut the image and get it removed from Commons.TCO (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope this turns out to be be free but ... Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a nice images that adds to the article but, if it has to be cut than so be it (would really like it to stay though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks wing-man. And Fasach. I appreciate your hopes, but of course if we have to cut it, we definitely will do the right thing. I think that is how it will go down, with us cutting it. Have an inquiry in with the Canadian roads project, now, to get their experience and advice also. Let me just leave it up a sleep cycle before getting the Commons guys to scrap it. Well...at least I learned about FoP!TCO (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Image cut, AFDed at Commons, quotebox up in place. Onwards!TCO (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Various preliminary thoughts:

• What is it with the italicisation of the family and subfamily names in the "Taxonomy" section? It's not Wikipedia-wide practice to the best of my knowledge, is this something to do with the herptile project?

You are correct, I fixed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake, likely mine, based on not knowing the rule. No Wikiherp herecy. Thank you...and now I undertand where the italicizing stops. TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm rather shocked that this section fails to tell the reader who first elevated the species to a separate genus, and gives little information on the variation in species that have been recognized in the genus over the years (Ucucha's mammal articles have provided some very good examples in that area).

We've covered all the turtles that used to be in the same genera: the abstract here is basically what we talk about. As for who first called these four subspecies one species and genus, we kind of dance around it, but I'll look it up and make sure. Great comment!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear what the comment is saying. We cover the recent taxonomic dispute. If you think it needs more prominence, we can discuss that. But I don't think we tried to hide it. We even pushed to add two more references on the topic (one is late breaking). Essentially Shaeffer and Starkey advocate collapsing the subspecies into one, except dorsalis which they would elevate. Nothing much happened after their 2003 paper, but the 2010 turtle taxonomy committee reported on the subject with a two paragraph review of the pro and con arguments (and the comittee contains Shaeffer) and said that you could use either method (essentially "open mind"). The rest of the field is still using the classical method and that 2010 paper came out a coupla weeks ago. But, for instance protections done by Canada and Oregon are based on classical "four subspecies" breakout. All the fish and game limits in the US tend to break out by subspecies, etc. I really don't know if Shaeffer will win. And we actually only had a half a sentence on him before. But we grew that part a bit. I definitely don't think we should hide anything. But not adjuticate or try to help him "win". I've even read some of the primary literature and it's not as simple as the classicalists are fuddy duddies and Shaeffer got in and did microbiology. For one thing the chromosomal DNA tells a different story than the mitochondrial. And then the southern species does intergrade very readily. And Starkey and Shaeffer admit that it comes down to "what your species concept is". So I think we are being fair and should continue to be fair. I would very much disagree against rewriting the taxonomy within wiki though, given the majority of the field has still not changed and even the 2010 paper was only a "you can do either", not a clear verdict for Shaeffer.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One idea might be to have some sort of "featurey" boxed section for the Shaeffer 2 versus 4 debate: "The controversy rages!". That sort of thing. I'm not sure how this is done on Wiki, but it's the sort of thing you would see in a magazine article. and it allows us to give the matter a little more prominence visually, while not making us take a stance, or develop more content (I really think we have about enough, but we could add a sentence or two also, that's not biggie. Going more than a single para sounds like undue weight, though.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's best for an encyclopedia though (and I've personally never seen it done on wiki). I think basically what we have (maybe a little more) is just fine: we explain that even the experts haven't nailed it down 100 percent yet.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well I think how we have it then, discussing the "4 story" in a para and then the Starkey 2 in the next para (even with a transition showing the connection!), is sweet. On the individuals who discovered and classified, let's huddle and dig into the content and see if we can make something good come from that. You know better than me.TCO (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I left a note on the talk page to get us started.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If we did a set-aside like that (welcome anyone's thoughts on if this is ever done, how to do it mechanically), then we could also add the glacial theory for the subspecies. As is now, when we just have it in the section, we deliberately had that concept before the Starkey comments. Probably both could be separated and put together into a box as some sort of "point, counterpoint" thingie. What do you all think?TCO (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the individual who discovered it, thought we hit it, but we can look at that more and make that better.TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. We have researched and added a new paragraph discussing the initial discoverers. Placed right before the etymology discussion as it is more related to human issues than the turtle itself. Also, easier to do it after the subspecies themselves as animals are discussed (than before).TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The structure seems idiosyncratic. "Food chain" in particular is an odd choice of header, and the material there I'd normally expect to be combined with Reproduction, parts of "behavior" most of "population characteristics" in a broader "Ecology" section. (This would be a major strike against promoting for me.)

I will rename it Ecology to match the other articles on Wiki. FYI: The initial choice was deliberate as a more precise word. "Ecology" can mean more than "what it eats and who eats it" (it is a whole subject that encompasses more than just the food chain, plus it has other connotations, plus it is a fancier word than needed. I would have called it "Predator and prey", but the danged thing is an omnivore. We had Ecology header before and changed it. That said, I think reader will be fine with Ecology and it will better match other Wikipedia articles.TCO (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with changing it too, but if we do, we would have to include all of food chain, behavior, and reproduction. Perhaps it could be called Ecology and behavior, like over at Bog turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

done Ecology it is. the "who versus whom" concern. Better to eat than be eaten! TCO (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to merge Reproduction with "what it eats and who eats it". There is enough content for each to stand on their own as a sections. Also the behaviors are pretty different. Particularly, within "who eats it" we're not even talking about the same animal directing the action. I'm open to a discussion of why you think a different org is better, but please explain. I care a lot about the structure and huge skullsweat went into making it what I thought would be best for the reader. I don't want to change just because of "will strong oppose otherwise". What about not merging makes it a bad experience for the reader? TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I personally thoroughly dislike a level-2header directly followed by a level 3 one. To me it indicates that the content has been unnecessarily divided, or that a more general style of writing is needed. In particular the "range" header can go without any loss.

The current method is deliberate. We are grouping ideas into a logical thought heirarchy, a pyramid structure. If I have text before the lower level section breaks, then it needs to explain a higher level idea that encompasses the lower level ones. I could write a cheesy topic sentencey-paragraph that encompasses all the lower ideas, but I think it is low value add. Just taking a place where we had a 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 (at same level of heirarcy) and breaking the 2.1 division just so you can see running text at the 2 level is not proper organization. For instance withing distribution, they are different aspects of the idea distribition (geographic overall (range), micro-geo or stream versus forest) (habitatat), and intra-population of age and sex (pop features). So sex distribution is not a lower level explanation of geo-range, it's a part of the general idea of "Distribution". Again, let's have a dialog as I am open to learning. TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing we could do is merge all the behavior-ish stuff (Repro, Ecology, Behavior) into one meta-behavior section (I could rename Behavior to be Thermo-regulation and spin off Movement to a higher level). I thought it was nicer for the reader to navigate to the separate 2 equal signs breaks, as now, and added low value to group those ideas and just make another layer. But do you think it enhances the experience? (it would just be structural, there would be no discussion of the interactions of one with the other). Another option could also be to group all the Humint typ stuff (Conserv, Use, Culture) into a meta-section. What do you think?TCO (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Not meant as any sort of argument. Just to share, since we are both structure-lovers and want things top notch. But I has a teensy discussion on this issue of empty section headers, over at MOS. Really, I think there are plusses and minuses of each approach, and just sharing this if you find it relevant. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_118#What_is_guidance_.28or_just_opinion.29_on_details_of_section_structuring.3F

• A separate "phylogeny and evolution" (a pretty common header for animals IIRC) section would advantageously combine information currently placed in various awkward places. The information under "fossil" possibly belongs there, or merged within "range". In any case, three sentences do not a section make!

I support moving fossils into Taxonomy and renaming it "Taxonomy and evolution". Give me a sec, as I need to rewrite sentences so clear when reader has not learned about range yet.TCO (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

done Moved it. I think it fits better in the context of taxonomy and evolution. Was kinda sand under my carapace. Feel good it is with other things. There was a little bit of a "geo" concept before, but I don't think it was strong enough to have it under distribution. TCO (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it Taxonomy and evolution, not Phylogeny and evolution (tiny thing). Tax is realier more precise here, as some beautiful story of branching evolution is just not understood. So Tax is more precise to the content. Also, it's an easier word for the general reader.TCO (talk)

Totally agree. And I like that fossils was move up, it fits better, as mentioned.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Little more to be done. This section has grown some, with addition of fossils and discoverers. And I'm concerned the structure is no longer strong. Going to be a sweet section, soon, but need to do some rearranging to make the reason for why one para is before the other more logical.TCO (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rewritten section all integrated and flowin with the new discoverer content and moved fossil info.TCO (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By god, it's perfect!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Circéus (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thoughts! In the past there has been some fumbling of names for sections and subsections, maybe they need further altering. We discuss evolution in the taxonomy section (it was originally a separate section), and which parts of 'Food chain' belong in 'reproduction?' Just so I'm clear.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We also used to have an ecology section that incorporated much of the latter half of the article. It, however, proved to be much to big and finding information in the article was incredibly difficult.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - 1 circular redirect (Chrysemys); 1 bad link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain where Chrysemys is used in the article? Its apparent usage seems to be a toolserve software error. Updated the forbidden bad link. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in the navbox. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ah! Thanks! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, your welcome. Thanks for fixing that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References check:: first 40 footnotes and bibliography. Generalised errors needing correction identified. Will pass citation consistency with corrections!: Generally, web citations need to be strongly checked for works contained in larger works, collective authors, and publication dates.

"Taxonomic Information". Western Connecticut State University. and "Species Identification". Western Connecticut State University. are a subsections of a larger document "PAINTED TURTLE (Chrysemys picta)" which is a subsection of "Herpetology Species Page" which is authored by Theodora Pinou and collective authors "Herpetology course Spring of 2000 at Yale University, and Spring of 2006 & 2010 at Western Connecticut State University." Neither document is published by WCSU.

Interesting, based on this table, should authorship be attributed to "Aliya Ercelawn?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, the work is Aliya Ercelawn "Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta" in Herpetology Species Page eds. Theodora Pinou et.al. . The work appears to be published by Pinou. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I changed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Beltz, Ellin. "Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America – Explained" has a copyright date (2006) which ought to be noted.

Included.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)". Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. has a collective author "Herpetology Program"

Changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reptiles: Turtle & Tortoise". San Diego Zoo. is part of a larger work "Animal Bytes" a web periodical.

Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally the citations of sentences in web documents (while consistent and thus meeting FAC requirements) is a bit difficult to understand, try using the phrase "Found at sentence starting: "...""?

There are multiple independent citations of "Species Identification" WCSU which need to be collapsed together.

Condensed, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation of multiple authors inconsistent? Ernst/Barbour vs Foo; Bar; Bok; Baz.?

I changed 'Ernst/Barbour' to 'Ernst and Barbour'. I know they're still not the same, but do the citations and bibliography items have to be consistent in this regard (just a question, I really don't know)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I find that ";" and "and" are much more closely related than "/" and "and". I'd be happy with this! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation of format of web documents ie "(pdf)." versus Wikipedia automatically identifying and no indication of file format in text in brackets. Consider removing (pdf)s?

Generally the bibliography and citation quality is high. Web sources need double checking for noted bibliographic elements above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All format=pdf and work=pdf manual adding has been removed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome input. We will churn on this and brush up everything and reply one by one. Thanks for the attaboy and we want to make it even better. May be back for questions on a few where don't understand your comment, but will try to fix before troubling you!TCO (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Citation quality issues can be hard to resolve, identify, and can be frustrating. Feel free to ping if I have been unclear. When walking through web sources to produce a citation, remember that you can go up the directory hierarchy "http://foo.edu/store/Johnson/Turtles/painted.html" or even the left-hand / top menus and you may find the page you cited is actually contained in a larger work with an author / editor / date / specific publisher (in Universities, often a department, programme, or individual). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more an issue of me learning it for the first time, then of remembering it.TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you please explain a little more on what is best to list as the publisher? I've just been picking an institution. But I want to learn how to do this right next time. Didn't understand the stuff about directories and home pages and the like. TCO (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. The publisher is the person or institution responsible for issuing a work. In the case of a book it is in the bibliographic page (you've done well, listing both publisher and both locations for some books). In the case of the Journals, for example Labour History the publisher isn't JStor, but "Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Inc.". In the case of websites, it is more difficult. It isn't the host, Facebook isn't responsible for publishing "Jo Bloggs", Jo is. You have to look closer and see who or what organisation is responsible for editorial control, the decision to publish, and ensuring the content is up. In general with websites, the hosting domain is like a printer. Often (wikipedia.org) the host is also the publisher, but not universally. Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so. So obviously a journal is a journal. I don't know if we messed up listing JSTOR, but I get that, it's just a library, really, Elsevier would be the publisher, and we really should use cite journal with a url, rather than cite web anyhow. For a government website, I assume it would normally be the department of fish and game (or whatever). So we are probably fine there. With the Zoo, we missed that it was a journal (actually I sorta headscratched at the time, should have looked into it more), so it needs to be cited with cite journal anyhow. Where we were messing up was with universities as we were not really taking stuff off of the registrar's page or something official, but just using a lab group's page, in essence (or some small publication running out of a professor or group of professors). Is that about it? Just want to nail it so I learn.TCO (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yep! With Journals, publishers usually aren't cited, but the publisher is usually the Society for Publishing the Journal, and not Elsevier: Elsevier is a service that journal publishers (ie: the societies) make use of, and if Elsevier tanked, they'd still publish. With university websites, you're dead on. If it is a Lab / Department page, then the Lab / Department is responsible. If it is an individual staff member's page "/biology/jbloggs/turtles/index.html" then the publisher is the individual (usually). You've got it nailed. I think you should be able to check refs 41-153. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. So we will leave it as a to-do to run every check listed above on the remaining refs and then put a bolded "done" or whatever when we have every check done.TCO (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And we will try to leave publisher off when doing "cite journal" anyhow. Not sure if we had some of that creeping in. I'm just used to it being the physical publisher for a book. And then for a website, it's like what we talked about.TCO (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw. Not ready for FA. 'Painted Turtle' reads in places like a casual magazine article and in other places like a "scientific" paper, making for an uneven read. Too many disruptive bulleted lists that incoporate bolding, once again making for an uneven read. Is it necessary to both bullet and bold a few short passages? There are other ways to manage this. The article should be given a sentence by sentence, section by section review by an experienced and talented editor familiar with "scientific" style and then delivered to PR for further scrutiny. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple things. Those bulleted lists follow MoS, we only go into deep detail where issues are not yet resolved by the experts (i.e. taxonomy), and this article follows the same basic style as Bog turtle, an article dragged through FAC only about seven months ago. This article has already been through a peer review and a GA review.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be but those bulleted and bolded passages are so short that they can be rendered in a single prose paragraph. As they stand, they make for a bumpy, awkward read. It is immaterial whether this article "follows" another article or not. Each article is unique. My greatest concern is the style. As I said, the article should be turned over to an expert in "scientific" style. As it stands, it has an amateurish flow about it that a good editor could correct. Withdraw the article and seek an editor who can give the style an overhaul and bring the article up to a professional level. What's the rush in getting it to FA? Give the article another 6 months' work. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Various people have already discussed the bulleted lists found in the article, see relevant conversations here: 1, 2, and 3. It was deemed the most effective way to convey the information. Also, see this. And the only reason I brought up Bog turtle was because you said you had a problem with this article's "style," I was just proving that an article of similar style made it through FAC. Thank you, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of readability: The writing is a pretty deliberate effort to be more accessible while still conveying information. Obviously, we know the literature to the extent that we are pretty good on this creature and we have tried to convey the really fascinating aspects (like the supercooled). We have a LOT of technical content (sex distribution for instance), but that's all the more reason to be as clear and write for a general readership as possible. I have a Ph.D. so it's not like I can't handle the technical terms. And I've written a lot of technical papers (and always tried to eschew wordiness and communicate in a Katzoff--like manner). I just think saying "spermatogenesis" when you can say "making sperm" is slowing the reader down. It's almost because we have so much confidence in our understanding of the topic that we can make it read like a magazine article (not a bad thing at all by the way...people who write for a living for magazines are something I respect very much and a joy of life...if WP was all written to professional mag standards we'd be a lot more "brilliant-bristling"). I want to convey more information than other pica articles on the net do, and do it with more enjoyment.

I really think this is taking to heart the wiki guidance on writing technical articles, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, AND not just wiki guidance, but everything I've learned as a technical writer, what books on effective technical writing say, etc. At this point I've read every picta article on the net (there are a lot, it is popular to write a feature on it) and think we are the best. Have the most information (not just technical, although we are the strongest popular article there, too) and often are more accessible. That said, I may be barking up a tree and "doing things differently". And it might just not be acceptable. Or maybe I'm just not even right on the substance. (I still think I'm right, though, now.) But if you would like it to "read more technical sounding", then obviously it can be changed. I'm very sensitive to not hurting my young collaborators or having them go down, because of me trying to drive a standard. Probably what I would like to do here is "force the issue", have the editor in charge make her decision, and then just see if we can pass with the current article which was honestly meant to be a joy to readers and a boon to wiki. I understand that arguments are read by the editor and considered. It is not just a matter of a vote or doing whatever the reviewers say. I would like to play it out, just for the benefit of all. If it gets closed as a failure, then my colleages can "re-carapace" the thing. I will help with the grunt work, but probably not ask to be listed as nom or "get a star" given the difference in judgment. Sound fair? At least an interesting experiment.

On the bullets: The intention of the bullets is to take what would be pretty listy type of information and really separate it out for the reader. This is approved per this MOS guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists). And it's not just some odd-ball MOS guide. It's how I would try to write most effectively off-wiki, and how I've been trained. There's reasons for why the bulleted lists help the reader. They help the reader guickly navigate. Every time he sees the darned bullets he knows they're being used for the same thing, with the same structure. In prose, he would have to slog through. He sees an implicit (non-line using) section break, can grab a species that interests him, can decide to blow it off subspecies if he just wants picta general level info, can easily do compare/contrast, etc. (And using the bulleted small paras is not a result of some Powerpoint influence, or not being able to write structure paragraphs. We do that fine in Reproduction with even a narrative flow, and in other areas with clear transitions and the like. It's an honest effort to convey more technical detail with LESS reader pain, as the Wiki guide on writing technical articles advises.) But maybe this is another test case.

I hope the rebuttal is not too loquacious or argumentative. And I do genuinely respect that you are trying to make all starred articles meet a high standard AND that you've reviewed a lot of them. Nevertheless, respectfully, would like to disagree and at least chew it over. I do think these issues of language and improving the prose in wiki are important and just kind of fun and interesting intrinsically. Plus we busted our asses on that article, so the methods are not inadvertant flaws (if flawed) and I think it's important to really grapple with this issue. Heck, maybe I learn something that changes my writing to make it less magazine-sounding (I can be wordy, pretty readily). TCO (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The user account User:56tyvfg88yju was created less than three weeks ago (December 19th), his (or her) contributions consists merely of creating his (or her) user page and talk page, and opposing the promotion of four FA candidates, one of them being Painted turtle. Just throwing that out there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the delegates, User:56tyvfg88yju is an alternate account of disruptive user Piano non troppo. Keeping that aside, NYMFan69, although his is an unjustifiable oppose, I think some of these points are indeed valid regarding the bulleting list, and as a reader sometimes I found myself getting distracted. Would you mind considering them? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a few editors have already discussed it, but we'll reexamine and try to come up with something better. Thank yo so much Legolas2186.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments—Seems somewhat unpolished to my eyes. Here's a list of suggestions based on the lead and first section. I haven't assessed content/consulted the literature yet. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• FAC delegate: lengthy resolved commentary moved to archive talk page. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Support—Ok, I think my work is done here. I'm ready to support. I did a literature check, but the search term "Chrysemys picta" yields over 2000 hits in the Web of Knowledge, so I'm happy with the high-quality secondary sources used in the article. Coverage seems complete. Prose is fine, and I've picked over it a few times so I think it's MOS-compliant. I still think it would be good to add citations/links to the original publications as in my comment below, but I may just do that myself. Good job guys. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's slick addition. We just lost track of the task.TCO (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• how about giving citations to the original publications where these taxonomic changes were made? Much of this older literature is available on Google Books or Biodiversity Heritage Library, and I think it's cool (and scholarly) to link these original centuries-old publications with their 21-st century Wikipedia page.

It might be in the Mann thesis or perhaps Bishop's paper. Think it is slick to add, although not vital. Just have to go research it.TCO (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to locate it. I also agree that it would be nice to have. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.TCO (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Bullets: I altered the list under description; I made the four bullet points two paragraphs. Working on the other two lists.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I did the same for distribution, but I don't feel to strongly about the way it looks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The last one (formerly under habitat) has been condensed into one paragraph. Please let me know if these three parts are better/worse than before.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there was one more, did the same: two paragraphs.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support—excellent work. Some random observations:

thanks for attaboy and upgrades.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "basked" deceptively piped to Ectotherm? How will readers know this is not a low-value dictionary link? It's a common English word, so I'm unlinking it and making the link explicit: "Reliant on warmth from its surroundings, the painted turtle is active only during the day, when it basks for hours on logs or rocks (see Ectotherm)."

• I'm with you here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Change improves us. The issue was wanting to link the concept as it is pretty important in the story (although perhaps since it is a common word, just linking thermoregulation would be good enough. Wiki has no article on basking, but has a redirect to ectotherm so we kinda stumbled here. But calling out the concept is better.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• No hyphen after an -ly adverb (MoS).

• Removed one of two, I'm unsure of the proper formatting for "related subfamily-mates" though (we might have to reword this one).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we chopped all those snake's heads. One must have regrew. Subfamily is a noun so should be OK, no?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the painted turtle has webbed feet to aid it in swimming[31] and 50 chromosomes.[25]"—to aid its chromosomes?

• Ha, no, reworded.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Compared to the adult, the hatchling has a proportionally smaller head, eyes, and tail, and a more circular shell"—many writers prefer "compared with" for contrasts; but why not "The hatchling has a proportionally smaller head, eyes, and tail, and a more circular shell, than adults.

• Done, but I left out the last comma (was that the wrong move?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

we use serial comma everywhere else so should add here.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd prefer all sentence case for the external link pipes (looks better and retains the meaning of the real upper-case initials, like North America—thus easier to read). At the moment it's higgeldy-piggeldy with title case. The original case is irrelevant.

Not disagreeing, just don't understand what links you mean, and the situation and all.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony means the links on the references for example ref#11 reads "Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America – Explained" matching the original, but "Scientific and common names of the reptiles and amphibians of North America – explained" would be better. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I'm fine with sentence case. Was not aware the options. Just went and Googled some stuff: two opposing views, [2] and [3]. Here's a good one discussing the options: [4], although not in the context of citations, still interesting the options. Plus there were some links talking about commercial programs like Endnote and the like, where you can actually set the citation style, or even have it "as source uses". Guess it is just one of those things. When we get Wikipedia to adopt one citation style (really don't see the reason for not just picking one, huge effort spent becuase of the difference even when intention is consistency as the tools end up with differences and people don't well understand what the "tool" style really comes from), we could set the sentence case as well.TCO (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Standardized all sentence case for external links whether websites or pdfs. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• The ref tags look far too dense, and actually do obstruct the reading process. However, I see there's not too much sequential repetition, and the tags are very specific.

We set a limit of 3 in a row and started grouping after that. We could start taking ones that are 3 and bundling those also. Other thing is sometimes we've had 5 or more in a sentence as some were within the sentence and then some at the end, so we started bundling (some of) those. We could try to do more of that. Other option is to be a little less nitanoid about putting stuff inside sentences like a jab in the eye (ha! we sourced that! and that!), or perhaps it was defensive. Anyhow, maybe if we moved more to the end of the sentences, it would go smoother, and reader can just look at the sources (titles usually given) to tell which one he needs for what fact. Thoughts?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd go for 240px images, but that's a personal opinion. Tony (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it the small ones being small that bothered you or the big ones being big? I am a fan of larger images. It seems conventional web design to have larger images, than what we are usually running on wiki. And a real distraction to make the reader have to leave the webpage or open a new window to see details (and we have a few where the turtles are small like on the trap). We had some even larger than 240 before, but they were pushed smaller in review. Thoughts?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have made all stand alone images of 240px width as recommended above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking preference: MOS guidance is not to link common geographic terms. Understand one reviewer feels different, but I don't think this is make or break. Overlinking makes articles harder to read and given the material is technical, do not want common things labeled. States and provinces would forces us into have blue terms next to each other also. Want to keep links for things like "supercooled" that I WANT to send reader to (as its cool) or things that really can't be explained parenthetically, like mitochondrial DNA. Preference is also not to "define by blue link" if a quick parenthetical will handle it. I feel this is a bad trait of some of the technical articles here, and reduces readability and enjoyment. Also there is some discussion of not doing this in guidance. This is a totally cool topic, which we could totally get into discussing the philosophy of. But would also add that a very clear process was taken and a lot of thought put into the decisions on linking. Can direct to specific talk page discussions in the article and referring further to MOS and all that. Of course it is judgment, but our reasons are spelled out there. Basically we have enough speed bumps to comprehension with sex distribition and the like. No reason for low value links.TCO (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Again, it's no big deal to me what the nominators prefer regarding linking (and I will not do something silly like oppose over it), I'm just tossing out suggestions. As an aside, "Common knowledge" is not so common :) Sasata (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to close and promote. We've responded to all reviewer comments and made several upgrades: especially in reference format (which despite our thinking we had been careful, was subpar), but also reorganized fossils and taxonomy and added two paras of new content. Also added methods of age determination, that should be intrinsically cool for the reader, and helps justify a claim we made on long-livedness. This is an important article, based on its hit count and because it will be looked at by both scientists and the general public. But I think we have managed to satisfy both. And we have combined some aspects of human interaction with the biological more effectively than any other summary around, so we really are providing an encyclopedic reference benefit. Think this is great stuff to run on the front page. Request the up-down vote and our "gold star" sticker!TCO (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles are generally not promoted without at least three supports - many articles have between four and eight, and there have been recent ones with over a dozen. Above, I can only see one support vote. I would suggest pinging the editors who have commented but not made a support/oppose declaration, asking them to revisit their comments (don't ask them to support, that's canvassing!). Another thing would be to ask if any of them feel comfortable moving their finished commentary to the talk page - this review page is getting really long and that can sometimes be off-putting to other potential reviewers. Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dana for your advice. I whole-heartedly agree with what you're saying: the opinions of those who left commentary and never returned should be sought out and this cluttered review page has a sort of repulsion effect on supports. A couple more weeks of FAC are in order for this article. Again, thank you.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments beginning a read-through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and post queries below. no prose clangers left that I can see. Definitely comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See the fixes going in, thanks.TCO (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) is the only species of Chrysemys, a genus of Emydidae: the pond turtle family. - why a colon? Surely that'd be used if there were going to be a list after it. I'd go with a comma or unspaced mdash or spaced ndash.

It's actually appropriate usage (and not just a rule, but properly applied). The colon can be used to call attention to an explanation, not just a series. Page 169, Harbrace College Handbook, rule 17.d (1) with examples. But it won't REALLY won't kill me to have an appositive comma in there, either. Just sharing since this FAC page has stuff about how the review process is supposed to be useful for discussion of writing. There was a colon Malleus had put in another section too, properly used, that someone sniffed at and clipped.  :-) TCO (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha - interesting. I must remember that Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

the conventional view has further held that the subspecies evolved in response... - strikes me as a tad wordy, do we really lose anything by changing to something like "the subspecies was thought to have evolved in response..."

You're right. I was trying to show transition, but sometimes I overdo it. (The whole experience is like a writing lab.) Feel free to tighten that bad boy up. Will be out of pocket the next coupla days, but my colleague will take care of inquiries...and I'm very much a fellow believer in clean prose. We're simpatico. TCO (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

done and dusted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To nobody in particular: Circéus was generous enough to leave us some commentary. We addressed it all (or at least we think), but the editor has not yet returned to see if the concerns were fixed to his/her liking. I left a comment on the person's talk page a few days ago, awaiting a reply...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Earlier I suggested the article be withdrawn. I'm still finding the style awkward. The article needs about six months more work under a skilled editor.

A professional editor ought to be able to turn around a work this size in a day or two, even if it needed a total re-write (which it doesn't). In six months, I can literally research and write a book. Also, we have not had any ongoing interaction with you the last two weeks. This is feeling more like "timed RFA oppose" than a real effort to engage the work product.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The head of the turtle is distinctive. POV. Entire sentence can be deleted.

It's normal usage. I'm not saying the turtle is a sharp dresser in a tux, but that he has stripes on the head that distinguish him from other turtles.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

With turtles, the head is oftentimes the best way to distinguish between species. I think this sentence is fine. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• As with many other closely related pond turtles, such as the bog turtle, the painted turtle has webbed feet to aid it in swimming and its karyotype consists of 50 chromosomes. Why is its karyotype mentioned with its webbed feet? "As with many other closely related pond turtles, such as the bog turtle" can be cut.

That part has always been a litle tricky and I understand finding issue with it. Was grouping a coupla facts that are not really distinctive features (are similar to some of its close relatives, but I guess which we wanted to note as interesting). We could either leave it as is, or stick the webbed feet in with the rest of the body discussion and just deep six the chromosome factoid, or go research and develop a whole paragraph on the microbiology of the creature which would house the chromosome factoid. What do others think?TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of chromosomes close to fifty if not dead on fifty and webbed feet are two characteristics of all emydids. Because of this and the way we carefully worded the sentence, I think it's okay as is. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The male has much longer foreclaws, which he uses in courtship How much longer? Cut the courtship bit. It's explained further along.

Agreed, cut.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A qualitative measurement of the difference in length between the male's claws and female's claws is nowhere in any literature I've seen and isn't encyclopedic. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• and the countries Germany, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Spain Is "countries" necessary?

I think it is helpful, worth the extra word, to show the thought flow. Before, we have a state by state discussion and we are actually bundling that country list as a phrase within a sentence talking about another state.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with this concern. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• For digging, the female relies on her hind feet. On them, she may accumulate so much sand and mud that her mobility is reduced, making her vulnerable to predators. But, to lighten her labors, she lubricates the area with her bladder water. Once the nest is complete, the female deposits into the hole. Is there a way to streamline passages like this? I reduced it to two sentences using only two periods and eliminating all the commas. The entire article can be streamlined. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it reads fine as is. You have not shown your version.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This particular passage is a tad wordy, we'll take a look at it. Certainly don't agree that the whole article is like this. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the article for me is the number of editors working on it. I count three. A consistent style has not been established. It seems to me the editors are more concerned with points of grammar than style. Explaining to an experienced editor why they're using a colon instead of an em dash, exhibits a kind of immaturity and hubris. This is not good. The article needs a consistent, mature style. I sense the editors are young and used to a casual style in their life and work and the maturity I expect is understandably foreign to them. They're pressing the article to be passed before its time, and this in itself is evident of immaturity. I point out something that could be improved and I'm rebutted with a lengthy explanation of why it is the way it is. If I'm confused, then others will be too. This is not good. This immaturity is evident not only in the article but in their responses on the talk page and their user pages. Again, I reaffirm my opposition to promotion and my belief that the article could be vastly improved by a mature, experienced editor. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is immature about our approach? The word "casual" or "informal" may describe some of conversations, but never our style of writing in the article. I'm 18 years old, I mention that on my userpage. I'm still learning the ins and outs of grammar and style. The other two main contributers are, at least to the best of my knowledge, older than me, although I wouldn't venture to guess a number. I don't really see what your problem is with this article. The prose has been reviewed by about a half dozen people, none of which pointed out problems like yours (most of which I don't even recognize as problems).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the contributors is retired. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project and an oppose because three editors are working on an article is bizarre. I trust the FAC closure will give such comments no weight and the the editor in question will quickly strike such comments. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposing because the style is inconsistent as a result of so many editors. There's a sort of editorial immaturity in the many one or two sentence paragraphs such as "Although the subspecies may hybridize (intergrade), especially at range boundaries, they are distinct within the hearts of their ranges." The two blue quote boxes appear to to be substitutes for illustrations. The liberal sprinkling of commas and other forms of punctuation make reading the article a chore. The goal is clarity not obfuscation. I stopped dead in my tracks when I first read this: "To thrive, painted turtles need fresh waters". What's wrong with something direct and simple like "Painted turtles thrive in fresh waters."? Here's another: "Along water bottoms, the painted turtle hunts." How about "Painted turtles hunt along water bottoms."? And this: "Large prey it holds in its mouth and tears up with its forefeet." How about "Large prey is held in the mouth and torn with the forefeet."? There's a consistent awkwardness in the writing. In References, there's a note with seven citations. A mature, experienced editor would manage all of this differently. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The type of grammar "issues" you're pointing out above are present in every Featured Article. They're commonly used English grammar conventions. This article went through a peer review, a GA review, and a copy-edit sweep by a member of the copy-editor's guild. I don't know what more we could have done to make sure the prose of this article is as good as possible.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked this up in Harbrace. I cut the comma from along the water bottoms per their instructions on inverted sentences. I think the comma is needed after to thrive. "Along the water bottoms" is the only Time Magazine style ("backwards the sentences reeled" per the New Yorker parody) sentence I have. I think it's OK in a discussion of hunting, and the article has enough dry spots. We should use what we can that is more narrative. Also Harbrace says to use it occasionally and not overuse and I did it once. But if you want to drain all the life out of the clip, oh well.

I think we are varying sentence construction between direct constructions and ones that have a phrase at the beginning pretty normally. All direct would be wrong. All phrase at beginning would be as well. I think you are dwelling on a matter of "ear" that is very subjective. Important sure, but one where we are aware and follow a middle course. Think the piece is normal writing with sound organization and grammar and content. I think that dwelling on this sort of issue of ear is not likely to drive best work product or even the proper place to direct people's attention in "how to write". That good writing is some mystical almost musical matter. There are so many bigger issues of logic and organization involved in good writing. These are the places for attention.

I enjoy a discussion of sound writing and sound content. If anything I might have some sympathy for some of your comments about the lack of paid editors and designated reviewers and closed review and the like. So far, I'm not being blown away by your own works though and I might even be coming to more of an appreciation of the current wiki volunteers system.  ;-)

I'm not interested in hurting anyone's feelings (I've done that enough on the Internet), but I'm also not interested in being political (I thought some comments about "getting votes" were very interesting, I might have had a view that this was more of the way things are done at a journal with a head editor). At the end of the day, what matters is if this is front page material or not. Not how sweet we are. As far as maturity, it is what it is. I'm formerly perma-banned so this is more gentle, less flippant than how I like to roll. Hopefully we learn something even if the experience is a fiasco. Right now it's not penetrating my noggin!  :-) TCO (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we using Brit spelling here "behaviour" and American spelling here "labors"? 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The intention is all American.TCO (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I've fixed the few minor points raised by the last reviewer above along with a few others as I lookd through the article. There seems to be an increasing trend to demand perfection, or "my way or the highway", not just here at FAC but generally. The science here seems sound, comprehensive, and easily accessible. The prose is at least as good as many other FAs, and better than some. Is it perfect? No, and nor could it ever be, as we're merely human. But more to the point for us here is "is it of a professional standard"? Yes, I think it is. I do have one question though: "The young turtles grow rapidly at first, sometimes doubling in the first year". Doubling what? Their size? Their weight? Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus for the thorough copy-edit you've done on this article (not just today and yesterday). You are of course right, there is no such thing as the perfect article, we can only make them as good as possible with what we have. And yes, doubling in size, I've reworded. Thank you again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.