Talk:Chicken turtle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will take on this review. Hope to have comments up within a couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to take a look! This is my first animal-related article of any length and I'm hoping to take it to FA eventually so all comments/criticisms are very welcome. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after a first read-through, I think the article is already very well-written, and I only have nitpicks to offer as improvements:

suggested links for the lead: subspecies, glaciation, plastron, Florida, vernacular name
Done
make sure that output numbers in conversions templates don't end up with more significant figures than the input number (especially when then preceding text indicates that measurement is approximate), e.g. "… females around 10 in (25.4 cm)."
Fixed that sig.fig. issue and corrected the typo in the lead (should have been 26cm as in the later description). A couple of the sig.fig. issues later on I'm unsure about (e.g. grams to ounces – giving 8–9 g in oz to 1 sig fig would be 0.3–0.3)
family Emydidae is alternatively described as "pond turtles" and "the freshwater and marsh turtles"
They are described as many different things in different sources; I have changed to "freshwater marsh turtles" both times per Carr (don't think the "and" added anything)
link Ancient Greek, Latin
Done
maybe pipe link for "had been published first" to Principle of priority?
Done
Because the article is not only about the species, but also the monotypic genus, I think the genus name should be bolded in the lead, and the taxobox should display the generic authority
I was wondering about this before your comment – since a second member of the genus has been described, should we have a separate page Deirochelys (rather than a redirect) for the genus?
Update: I was bold and created a new page for the genus. Links etc. should all be updated now. BigDom (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and females up to 26.0 cm (10.2 in)" this is not quite the same as what's stated in the lead
Fixed, see above
Check article throughout for needed links to US States.
Caught them all, I think
D. reticularia is considered to have "one of the most complete evolutionary records of any Recent turtle". Considered by who? Quotes need direct attribution in article text
Attributed to Jackson
”sub-Recent” please provide link or gloss so reader knows when this refers to
Added gloss
is Deirochelys carri worth a redlink?
Done
link wetland, introduced, hatchling, clutch, incubation period, sexual maturity, ovulate, wildlife reserve
Done
there’s some Harv errors in refs#40 and 76
Fixed
I think the entire article needs an audit to check on the use of "which" and "that"; generally, "which" follows a comma, but there's many websites you can check to review the rules for usage.
~~I've had a read through the article but I'm not sure I see the issue to be honest. Happy to fix if you have any particular examples.~~
Had another pass through this morning and have tidied these up I think. BigDom (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my second pass through I'll check sources for source-text integrity, and also do a literature check for missing information. Esculenta (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I think I've addressed most of the points above and look forward to part 2. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<<<<<

Driveby minor comments: some metric measurements are first and some in brackets - I would prefer them all to be metric first but as the subject of the article is American maybe Esculenta will specify otherwise. Turtle is sometimes referred to as "it" and sometimes "they" which is occasionally a little jarring when in adjacent sentences. I think alt text is required for FA - not sure about GA. "Which" and "that" looked fine to me as a Brit, but again Americans may disagree.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. I think I've changed the measurements to all be metric first (that's the way they were in most of the sources anyway with being scientific). I noticed that myself with the "it" and "they" reading back through, just a product of writing different bits at different times I suppose but I'll go through in the morning and try and clean up a bit. Thanks for the tip re. alt text too, will get that added. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

In my opinion, the article already meets or exceeds GA-level expectations in terms of WP:WIAGA criteria 3a (main aspects) and 3b (focused). Here's what I might say in a review for an FAC-candidacy, with the understanding that the nominator should feel no obligation to address or include these during this GAC candidacy. Esculenta (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"After copulation, the female can retain eggs for several months until the nesting season begins or a suitable nesting site is found." Is the implication that the female is able to overwinter with calcified eggs in the oviduct? If so, it might be clearer to state this explicity (it's my limited understanding that this is not a ubiquitous trait amongst similar turtles?)

Seeing as there’s already a section titled "DNA", it might be worthwhile to add that a specific environmental DNA assay has been created to detect this (and other turtle) species as part of the development of a genetic monitoring program for tracking species of conservation concern. doi:10.1007/s12686-020-01167-3

Parasitic mites are probably worth a sentence in the ecology section, as well as blood flukes. doi:10.14411/fp.2016.041

how are the demographics of this species affected by growing in maritime forest habitat compared to their mainland counterparts? see here

doi:10.1655/08-028R1.1 this study could be used to expand with details specifically how this species can survive extended periods of drought

worth mentioning that "unlike the other subspecies, D. r. miaria is demonstrably omnivorous"? doi:10.1643/CH-14-072?

mass of the egg? hatchling length? some numbers here doi:10.1894/0038-4909-62.4.280

is there more phylogeny/cladistics that should/could be added from here? doi:10.7717/peerj.4338

apparently the Red-shouldered hawk has been known to snack on the Floridian subspecies

the 1997 South Carolina study has been used to extract examples of its diet; perhaps Jackson’s 1996 study would also have some similarly useful or corroborative information?

for FAC I would ask if it was possible to include a multiple image of the three subspecies side-by-side to add to the subspecies section

@Esculenta: Wow, thanks for these, some really good sources of extra info. I'm going away for the weekend but will get them added next week. For your last point, sadly there aren't any photographs of D. r. miaria on the Commons, but I shall have a look online for any appropriately licensed images we might be able to use. Let me know if there's anything that still needs addressing in terms of the GA. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is Latreille's 1801 publication available somewhere online? Daudin's? If so could they be cited and linked? The article mentions the type is based on a drawing, so that would be interesting to see.
FAC citation nitpicks: book and article titles should be consistently title case or sentence case; maybe the ISBNs should all be converted to consistent 13-digit, hyphenated format? (there's currently a mix of formats)
I don't think access-dates are needed for Google books links or other links based on printed publications. Also, publishers aren't needed for journals (if one did that, one should do that consistently for all of them, which just seems unnecessary).
add category:Taxa named by Pierre André Latreille ?

I should finish up the GA formalities here: I have read through the article and in my opinion, it meets all of the GA criteria. It is well written and complies with the manual of style. All 8 images are appropriately licensed for use in this article, are relevant, and have suitable captions. Spot checks of a few sources revealed no evidence of original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism. Citations are from reliable sources. Good work, and good luck at FAC! Esculenta (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed