Talk:Wood turtle/Archive 1

Wood Turtle => Wood turtle

I imagine it should be lower case turtle like Bog turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had given that some thought as well. Is it easy to put a request in to have it changed?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just did it. Ucucha 00:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that was easy!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy if your an admin :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that why!?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to delete the page that existed at wood turtle. Ucucha 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Layout

Okay, after sweeping through three sources, I have come up with this general layout for the article (suspiciously similar to another article). Do any additional sections need to be added? More research to follow as well as images.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Habitat map required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In the process here. Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, how hard would it be to horizontally flip this image (this may not be the best solution, but I'm trying to alternate the images)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disregard, I have a plan once the map thing works out :)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanding's

What is a blanding's turtle, is that a breed. Okay got it Blanding's Turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Basking

The link bask, to be resolved or removed. Maybe the link should be removed as 'basking' in the sun in normal English; or is the intention to have some different type of basking here? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the link for now. Can add it back if some different type of basking is meant. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, we'll leave it removed. I thought there would be a page on this, but I guess not. I will change it so that it mentions thermoregulation instead.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Various common names

"Today, there are various common names for the wood turtle, including: sculptured tortoise, red-legged tortoise, and redleg". I decided to create redirects for the alternative names, but found 'red-legged tortoise' re-directs to Red-footed tortoise. Is there a duplication of meaning here? It seems likely that an entry on Red-legged would be suitable also. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The red-footed tortoise isn't the same thing because that turtle is not even in the same genus. I'd imagine these common names are sort of up for interpretation (they probably vary between states/countries (U.S. and Canada), and other localities). Probably nothing to worry too much about, after all, the common names mentioned in the bog turtle article are not linked.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

All done. Linking in is not part of this article, but helps people locate things on wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Growth rate

In the lifecycle section we have at the beginning 'Wood turtles take a long time to mature' then at the end of the section a sentence about rapid growth in first year. The rapid growth somehow has to be put into context. Rapid growth I guess means for a turtle, also it would be useful if the two setenced about growth are near to each other rather then at beginning and end of section. Unless it is meant in two different ways. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. What was meant was that they physically grow rapidly in the first years (within the first 14-15 years they are fully grown), but sexual maturity is reached a little bit later (hope my changes helped clarify this). :)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And I think the logical progression of this section is as follows: background information with several statistics, explanation of reproduction, explanation of nesting, explication of egg size / hatchling size, finishing with overall longevity. I tried to adhere to this as best I could (if anything else is out of place I'll fix it). :)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

After going through the section, I cleaned up some grammatical mistakes and things of that nature. Thanks again!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Many improvements in last 24hours. This issue is now fixed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it up for GA.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GA

Hey guys, feel free to shoot me down, but do think the articles meets the GA criteria?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Certainly in a state to submit as a GAN. If your around to be involved I recommend giving GA a go. At the very least it brings another pair of eyes to look over it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool! Thanks for the response, I will give this a try fairly soon. There's no problem with having only sources of information?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It is okay only having one source of information if that is your question. One source is fine as long as it's a good one. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, that answers my question. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be a summary of the article, just spotted it has nothing about conservation. Could do with a methodical checking. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I realize this. With the large influx of informatino it's a little hard to keep up. I will give this a read and add some more from the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read through it and looked over the sections of the article. The lead seems to be all-incompassing now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Still requires work. For example the part "can harm it include: snapping turtles, porcupines, beavers, and raccoons.", such lead info is not a summary, it is specific. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That has been reworded, anything else?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. Lead says...has been reported to live at least 48 years. The main text says 60 years is possible. Isn't this a contradiction? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, 48 is an average age while 60 is a maximum.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So it has been reported to live at least 60 years? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked it up again in the source and it says "Wild G. insculpta have survived for more than 40 years, captives to 58 years of age." Initially I misinterpreted. It has been changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Hey Suncreator, thanks for fixing all my silly spelling mistakes. Out of everything that goes into an article, spelling is the hardest for me to get write.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, to get right. ;) For me it's quite easy if it's common spelling because I have two spell check methods. What I cannot check is words not in any dictionary like Scientific classification and Synonyms. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way, you do great work. :)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservation

This section is quite short compared to section in Bog turtle and Hawksbill turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more research needs to be done (well...at least more information from the sources already cited needs to be included). Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more has been added (a copyedit of the new material may be in order). There's not quite as much material out there on this as there was for the bog turtle though (I suppose because the wood turtle is vulnerable, not endangered or threatened).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Messy

"The victim will, if he does not successfully defend his position, lose the female to the larger male". If he successfully defend his position he wouldn't be a victim! I don't think victim is correct wording anyway. The use of the word victim is perhaps point of view, either way that sentence requires rewording. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "defender?" If I do that than I can change "successfully defend his position" to something like "successfully fight for his position."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Defender is good. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it has been changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

fairly

NYMFan69-86, seems this word you love. Lots of occurrences in the articles. It's fairly similar, fairly common, fairly long, fairly open etc, I suggest the word fairly can be removed in most cases so it is similar, common, long and open ;) Check the article for 'fairly' usage. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You may like to read removing fluff from your writing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I was unsure of how to word many of the sentences. The source I looked at all did pretty much the same thing, so I took it to mean that they were unsure and, so, I started using the same words. I can/will take them out when I see them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed a very small amount of "fluffy" (I guess they would be called) words. Still many more to be sorted through (something that will likely happen tomorrow).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, it is an ongoing task removing fluffy unnecessary words. 'also' is used 12 times in the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So there's no concern about the reference's own uncertainty, just say the facts with confidence in the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not to change the meaning but to remove words that are redundant. A few minutes here and you'll get the idea. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Singular nouns and pronouns

I went through the article and took out all the fluff, corrected grammar, spelling, and sentence flow. Also, I changed everything to the singular form of noun and pronouns: "the wood turtle" and "it" as opposed to "wood turtles" and "them."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I was going to mention 'it', but one thing at a time. :D Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is also highly intelligent. The wood turtle has homing ..." messy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I reworded this sentence, but there are probably more like it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-aquatic vs aquatic turtle

Re this edit. It should not be a case of not being sure. Use verifiable information with a reference or remove it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know. I'm not sure, but I will be in several minutes (I was in school when doing that and the bell rang).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I put in the new info under Ecology and behavior. The wording's a little choppy but it's all correct and cited.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

terrestrial animal

"During the spring, summer, and early fall, the wood turtle is considered a terrestrial animal.[13]", the reference does not say this. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On page 4 it says "They prefer forested areas over nonforested, although small openings in the streamside canopy are essential for nesting and feeding. Wood turtles are omnivorous, are aquatic in spring and fall, and are mostly terrestrial in summer."--I should change it to just summer huh?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed to: "During the summer, the wood turtle is considered a largely terrestrial animal.[13]"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wood turtle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review)

Hi, this is a well written, informative article. I have been making some copy editing, and you are free to revert any errors. I don't know anything about wood turtles, so I will probably not notice factual errors. I am concentrating on other aspects of the article.

Description

• "50 chromosomes make up the wood turtle's karyotype" - sentences should not start with a number

Reworded.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "and has dark patches that can be used as a method of identifying juveniles." how?

I have removed it for now. I don't see anything that hints at why a difference in the pattern is helpful in that way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "are an orange to red in color with faint yellow stripes along the lower jaw of some individuals" - probably could leave out "in color" since colors are used previously without being called "colors".

Agreed...removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Seasonal variation in color have been known to occur." - in what way? (I'm thinking of how I would recognize this.)

Source says "intensity of color"...added in "vibrancy" (that's the word I'm thinking of, right?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Hatchlings carapaces' " - think this should be "Hatchlings' carapaces"

Yes, thanks for catching that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "Another aspect of the wood turtle that has been studied is their population densities." - could the wording be more simply: The wood turtle's population densities have been studied?

Even that's a little more confusing than necessary. I changed it to: "The densities of wood turtle populations have also been studied."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "In addition to this dynamic of wood turtle populations, it has been found that colonies can be expected to have more females than males." Can this sentence be simplified? i.e. leave out "In addition to this dynamic of wood turtle populations". Also, reword to "Wood turtle colonies tend to have more females than males"?

Changed to: "In addition to this, it has been found that colonies often have more females than males."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "spending most of their time either in streams or near them. They also prefer clear water with sandy river-bottoms" - could this be confined with the beginning of this section where sandy river bottoms are also discussed?

I removed it. It really didn't pertain to the idea in the sentence before it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecology and behavior

• bury themselves in the thick mud at the bottom of the river and physical movements are rare." - could you say: and rarely move?

Yes, changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "the outcome of encounters between two turtles is more aggression-dependent than size-dependent" - is aggressive behavior independent of size?

The first sentences of the section (Males are known to be aggressive, with larger and older turtles being more dominant. Larger males rank higher on the social hierarchy often created by wood turtle colonies) means that older males are more "cocky" if you will, however they may not be the most successful in bouts (larger ones start the fights and the outcome depends on his as well as the other turtles levels of aggression).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply ok, I won't belabor this point. But in humans, aren't "cocky" people more aggressive (because they are "cocky" and think they will win). Maybe you mean "Pugnaciousness" or willingness to fight is independent of size. A "fighter" is more likely to win than a "nonfighter" regardless of size. Xtzou (Talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what your saying.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Movement

• "The wood turtle, an intelligent animal, has homing capabilities." - Seem like "intelligent animal" could be left out, as don't many animals have homing abilities? Or is this unusual for a turtle?

It's common for sea turtles like the Loggerhead sea turtle and the Hawksbill turtle to have this ability. They perform several migratory movements throughout their lives, but it's rare for semi-aquatic and terrestrial turtles (but you're right the sentence is awkwardly worded and needs to be changed...any suggestions?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• "has a high adult survival rate" - what about all the turtle deaths humans cause, as mentioned in the lead? Under Conservation it says their numbers are on the decline.

I think the source meant that wood turtles who survive to reach adulthood are fairly well off. In other words, if it doesn't become a prey item or drown in a flash flood during the developmental years of its life it has a good chance of reaching old age. The human caused deaths and the fact that their numbers are declining are referring to them as a species, which includes hatchlings and juveniles (who don't share the high survival rates).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tag added

• The following statement "Wood turtles are omnivorous, are aquatic in spring and fall, and are mostly terrestrial in summer." occurs in http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overvie/docs/reptile_Clemmys_insculpta-Wood_Turtle.pdf

This link doesn't work for me, I'm sure the fact exists in one of the references I currently have.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I took care of the ref tag and was able to find the correct source for the rest of that paragraph. The article should be okay in that regard. Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

References

• I am having difficulty understand how you name your references. e.g. you have Bowen as first author in the Bibliography, but no footnotes use his name. I'm not sure which publication refers to his.

Well...I named them with abbreviations: SCA stands for "Species Conservation Assessment"--Should these be changed to have the author's name?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think so. I am no expert, but I had no idea what you meant by SCA. That requires the reader to figure out what initials you are using for any given reference. However, the first author (or et al, when needed) is a common way of identifying a referenced work. Xtzou (Talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They have all been changed, unfortunately I overran your copy-edit, all of which I replaced.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

• Just one question. In the sentence: " Mating activity among wood turtles peaks in the spring and again in the fall, although it is known to mate throughout the portion of the year they are active." - Do you mean that never in winter , except perhaps December? What are the months of their hibernation? (Did I miss where you specified this?) Xtzou (Talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the sentence "November through February or March is spent in hibernation at the bottom of a small, flowing river" written under Ecology and behavior. I think the instances of wood turtles mating in December are largely uncommon. The source says "mating can occur at any time during the active season but mostly in the spring and fall." Thus, mating during the time they are expected to be hibernating is rare.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Very nice article, beautifully illustrated. Xtzou (Talk) 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Is it still a "Good article nominee?" Or will that template change?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Map

It does look a bit like ink blots. But it also shows the distribution well. Perhaps if you changed the color from black to red? Xtzou (Talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...one second.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons is rather difficult, I'm trying to put the new one through, but its telling me strange things. I'm just going to wait and see what happens here and here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Commons, but you could consider uploading the new version under a different name and then replacing it in the article. Or you could upload it under a different name on Wikipedia and replace it in the article. File:Wood turtle distribution-3.JPG Just a thought. Xtzou (Talk) 21:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what I tried and it didn't work for me (I'm not sure what the problem is). The map's pretty ugly regardless, I think I'll wait for someone to come along and help me out...no rush.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked a user personally for help and he came through brilliantly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree! The new map is a vast improvement over the "ink blots". Wonderful. Xtzou (Talk) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)