Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Loggerhead sea turtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Change in Turtle numbers?

I know conservation efforts have been underway for some years, could anyone add information about the effect that all this has had on turtle population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by67.159.77.159 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Links

I added a link to SWOT Report, volume 2. This is a yearly publication and volume two focuses on the loggerhead nesting beaches of the world, along with many articles about loggerhead natural history, behavior and conservation. Also includes information relating to other species of sea turtles, but the information is heavily loggerheads. All products, publications and information produced by SWOT is to be freely used and distributed and is meant to be a public outreach, awareness and education tool for conservation of sea turtles.

Speaking of links... can somebody change back the link "Caretta" to the loggerhead turtle article? Nobody cares about some redneck infested wasteland of western Virginia while most people in mediterranean countries know the animal only by its scientific name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I changed the title of the article to "Loggerhead sea turtle" and redirected several redirect pages and only then actually read the WP guidelines for capitalization of species names. I reverted all my changes. andersonpd 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Save the turtles?

I think we all agree that sea turtles should in fact be helped to survive but is it actually appropriate to right "Save the sea turtle!!!"? I deleted this because i do not think it relates in any way to the actuall animal itself, wikipedia is simply a information thread and not a petition. Thanks.

EDIT- I deleted the "Save the sea turtles i know you Can!" from the main article beacuase it does not directly relate to the article.

Need picture of baby loggerhead?

I have a picture of a baby loggerhead sea turtle that I can offer if anyone thinks it would help the page or the loggerheads in general. I took the picture and would be willing to GNU license it if it seems useful. It is in a human hand and approximately 2.5 inches long. Also, yes, I know, shouldn't have picked it up but it was crossing the road and it was to meet its untimely death. Luckily it lived at least one more night. Anyway I'll watch this space for any comments and if you can't get me here try my userpage. JohnCub 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! Any pics are always welcome! Shrumster 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I got it uploaded and all. Not sure how you all want to use it in the article. [[Image:BabyLoggerhead.png]] JohnCub 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll slip it in in a temporary spot until I get around to fixing the article. Currently going through the C. mydas one first. Shrumster 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking at the picture, I'm sorry to say it isn't a loggerhead (or a chelonid). I'm not quite sure what it is but we can put it in the turtle article first until we determine where it belongs. Looks like one of the North American pond turtles. Shrumster 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'm not a turtle expert, or even novice as far as that goes. I went to a turtle forum and they told me it was a loggerhead. If it helps, it was found in the salt marsh area near Tybee Island Georgia. JohnCub 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Narrowed it down. It's a map turtle of some sort. If you could reupload the pic with a changed name, that'd be great. Then we can slap it into the map turtle article. Still a great pic! Shrumster 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry about the confusion. [[Image:BabyMapTurtleInHand.png]]. JohnCub 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob! Sticking it in the appropriate article...thanks again! Shrumster 06:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a baby, but here's an interesting photo from www.nps.gov: [1]. Thedisclaimer at the www.nps.gov homepage suggests this is public domain. I don't have time to add it to the article right now, but I'm also looking for a photo of a baby loggerhead! MoodyGroove 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

~~Here's a baby loggerhead [2] from National Park Service and turtle tacks [3] from US Fish and Wildlife. MoodyGroove 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove~~

~~Loggerhead escaping with aid of TED from NOAA [4]. MoodyGroove 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove~~

I uploaded some images today with appropriate public domain tags: [5][6] [7]MoodyGroove 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Thanks super! Shrumster 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Loggerhead/Loggerback Turtles

In following the Leatherback turtles in "The Great Turtle Race", I came across Loggerback turtles and when looking in Wikipedia for Loggerbacksea turtle, Loggerback turtle or just Loggerback, receive the note "No results found."

After doing some minimal googling and web searching, I find equal references to both loggerback and loggerhead turtles, often in the same article.

If the two are the same species, it would be nice to have that distinction in the Loggerhead Sea Turtle page so that someone searching forLoggerback turtles, would find the article.

Is there anyone who knows for sure that Loggerback and Loggerhead turtles are indeed the same species? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.90.74 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

light pollution

I changed "sandy beaches, where there is little light" to "sandy beaches, where there is little light pollution," to make the situation cllearer. On a first read-through, I thought we were talking about beaches where the sun doesn't shine.... 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 I noticed a non-cited "fact" that loggerhead sea turtles commonly live to the ripe old age of 198.7 years. This is a flagrant falsehood. Their lifespans are very comparable to that of humans, living to be about 65. I work in a state aquarium and frequently handle young loggerheads, so I feel qualified to make this statement. Please fix this with a peer reviewed source, preferably from a scientific journal. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 149.168.204.10 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Size Discrepancy

A 1m turtle typically weighs about 110 kg. They have been known to get to 400 kg or so, but they would not be 1.1m at this weight, unless you are measuring their width instead of length.. Find new source data that marries, not data like typical size 1.1m and maximum weight... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjayhawk (talk •contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sections

I've added some sections to this article based off of the Bog turtle article. I thought they were all applicable to this turtle. If you view some as unnecessary, post here. The last three sections: Ecology and life history, Feeding, and Importance to humans can be condensed into the other sections, I'll be doing that shortly. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PDF trouble

Does anyone know how to cite PDF files?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Open the PDF and fill out the citation template with the information found in the PDF. If it's not on the PDF you may have to go to the website where you got it from and see if it says there. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Book Source

I went to the library today and found a great book on sea turtles. If anyone wants to look at it just let me know.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have stuff all afternoon Tuesday, but I may be able to look at it Wednesday if you can bring it then. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to use it over the weekend I'll bring it tomorrow. I'm not done, but I won't be able to edit much this weekend because of bænd. Vancemiller(talk · contribs · count · email) 02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Loggerhead mating behavior

I was wondering if the mating process of loggerheads should go under the behavior section or reproduction section, or at all. It's pretty disturbing. Loggerheads like it rough.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010

I would assume that we should put the mating process under Reproduction. It makes more sense there. JoshyHMarks 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke <.< Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution Map

One of the sources I've found shows the distribution map to be different than the one already up. The source is reliable so I think we should go with the map it gives. I'm not familiar with the picture process for Wikipedia, though. Could anyone else take care of it or tell me how to? The url ishttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem. It says this link no longer exists. are you sure thats the right URL? I can get the picture if the correct URL is there. JoshyHMarks23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were to get to the picture it's probably copyrighted... You can't just put any picture up, you may have to create one yourself like in the scotch bonnet article. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is in need of a cleanup. It has several issues with it:

Missing spaces, particularly between links and the surrounding text causing the links to be printed likethis in several places.
Little consistency of measurement units with SI and non-SI units being mixed freely with little conversion.
Strong geographic bias, particularly towards the USA and to a lesser extent Europe:
- The article only discusses the life cycle of turtles nesting in the Atlantic. There is no mention of the life cycle of turtles nesting elsewhere, nor indeed does the article even admit to the possibility that the turtles nest elsewhere.
- Only the details for the legal protection of the turtles in the CITES convention, the USA and Australia is mentioned (with the latter country being mentioned three paragraphs later for some reason). There is no explicit mention of the laws that protect the turtles in any other jurisdiction. It is best for the article to mention that they are protected without stating explicitly the name of every law and statute, otherwise such treatment in a complete and balanced article would run to dozens of lines of dry reading.
- In many places during the nesting season, workers search the coastline to find evidence of nests. Where is this done? Is this really done in every country where the turtle nests, or just a few jurisdictions? The phrase "many places" must be qualified.
- Plastic fencing will be placed at or near the surface to protect the eggs from large predators such as raccoons or even dogs. Where is this done? The unqualified wording implies "everywhere", this is not the case surely?
- Statistics collected in Florida since 1998 however indicate the lowest nesting levels Florida has seen in 17 years, where nesting rates have declined from 85,988 nests in 1998 to approximately 45,084 in 2007. Why is this particular statistic significant? Are other comparable nesting statistics available?
- The Fripp Island, SC Turtle Patrol each year sets pieces of drift wood from the nests toward the sea as guides so the hatchlings get to start out in the right direction. There is no mention of other similar conservation efforts in other jurisdictions.

-- B.D.Mills (T, C) 01:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the list. A group of students has adopted this article as a part of WikiProject: AP Biology 2009. We have begun to improve this article and this will aid us in what we need to focus on. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

800 pound loggerhead

Nothing I have read has indicated a loggerhead weighing in at a whopping 800 pounds. The source the original editor of this article put is a broken link. I'm going to take that piece of info down unless someone has seen a verification of this. —Precedingunsigned comment added by TimHAllstr (talk •contribs) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume anything in this article is fact. Most, if not all, of it needs to be rewritten anyway. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

~~:Your reference "seaturtlebook" is in need of some additional information.~~

Most books have an ISBN number, put that in.

The "pages" part of the reference is for the range of pages that you used (e.g. 10-15) If you only used one page use "page" instead.

The location section is the geographical location where the book was published, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

~~Also, your reference "kiawah" really isn't GA/FA material. When finding references, it should always have an author (this one doesn't), and ideally should come from a journal of some kind.~~

One more things, when citing sources, you should put a reference after any fact that is something that may be challenged, not at the end of a paragraph. When you are reading something it isn't always clear that the entire paragraph came from that one source.

I removed some information from the Pacific section. It was restating earlier information, just in a more complex way. It's down here if you want to see it. ↓↓↓↓

"There are also few breeding grounds in the northern and southern Pacific Ocean. In fact, loggerheads have been found to nest in Japan in the northern Pacific Ocean. Eastern Australia, New Caledonia, and rarely Vanuatu and Tokelau. Yakushima Island, Miyazaki, Minabe, and Atsumi beaches on the mainland provide important nesting areas for loggerheads. Hatchlings migrate from the east Pacific to Mexico only to return later as sub-adults."

I honestly don't see how that information is redundant so I redid the info and am continuing to add more. As far as citing, Mr. Butler said that if the information is all under the same reference, then you do not need to put a reference after every sentence. You will see that we did this in Hypertrichosis as well. The book I got has 222 pages. I am still using this source for many different things so i don't know a current range of pages. I did not mean to say that I only used page 222 I was just stating the number. Thank you for the suggestion, or rather, the order to put the ISBN code in though. I'll see what I can do.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Vancemiller(talk · contribs · count · email) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Josh

I think you should add the "most researched sea turtle" info from that book you got. I didn't know what the exact phrase was (is it the most researched sea turtle ever?) so i didn't feel that it would be appropriate for me to put that info in.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Added it to the lead, but if we reference the book, shouldn't we be doing it by pages, not just the book? I'm not sure if there's a certain way to do that, but I'm not sure how. Any help? JoshyHMarks 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You could do an individual source for each page, but that's really excessive. As long as it's in the page ranges I assume it should be ok. There has to be a better way to do this though... I'm not sure what it is. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Can someone add in-line citations to the lines that require such additions?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[8]Interesting info on the use of magnetic field to navigate. "Scientific American" --JimmyButler (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Humphh...that's pretty cool, perhaps it should be included, I'll get on that sometime. Oh, by the way, did you see my pleading at the bottom of the bog talk page?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Check massive edit

A user recently made a deep edit of the article. On that persons talk page several instances are mentioned where this person removed information. I think it would be good if the Advance Biology class checks that all valuable information has been retained. --Ettrig (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked it over, they have changed a few titles and may have added a few facts. What I saw didn't seem to be too major. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Also, on my user page, I have drafted an outline for animal pages. Comments appreciated.Lfstevens (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging Information

I think it would make more sense to put the threats section before the conservation efforts section so that people have an understanding of what the loggerheads are being protected from. Anyone else think this is a good idea?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the threats section could be a subsection of the conservation section, since the conservation is due to the threats... Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing a Word Document?

I found a source that we could possibly use that is in a Word Document form that is a file for gpb.org. I do not know how I would cite this. At the beginning of the doc, the page says chapter 2 which suggests that it is from a book, but there is no author and I cannot find the original book it came from. Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHAllstr (talk •contribs) 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Same as the PDF citation you asked about earlier. Check around on the website where you found it, it should give some information about what it is you're clicking on. Maybe you could post the link for others to look over and try to help. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution info

I think the first sentence in distribution chapter is uninformative. It says only that the Loggerhead lives in all the 4 biggest seas. This is almost the same as saying it's everywhere. The map looks nice. It says that the loggerhead lives near all the coasts, except those closest to the poles. All three oceans and the Mediteranean, but not out in the open sea. Do you not the typical distance limit? (from the coast) --Ettrig (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the following difficult: Almost 45 percent of the juvenile population migrates from the Atlantic. My best interpretation is that 45% of the young in the Mediteranean were born in the Atlantic (on the Atlantic coast). Maybe the problem is just my disbelief. To me it seams unplausible that they should migrate so long as newborns. Is this what you mean? Another interpretation is that 45% of the young in the Atlantic migrate to the Mediteranean. This you surely do not mean. So at least a reformulation is called for, to remove this ambiguity. --Ettrig (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This source: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm has a different range map, which spans across the oceans instead of being limited to the coastline. It does not say how far offshore they travel, but according to the map provided I would assume they traverse the ocean. For the Mediterranean migration topic. It is my interpretation that the Mediterranean is like a nursery, and the juveniles that migrate in aren't necessary hatchlings, but just not adults yet. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So the currently included distribution map is in doubt? --Ettrig (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the loggerheads cross the ocean, so I think the map with their range limited to the coastlines is wrong. Is there a way to get that picture from noaa? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's public domain so we can use it, there are other pictures from that site that are in this article. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the same. Material produced by federal personnel at work is public domain. --Ettrig (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Almost 45 percent of the juvenile population in the Mediterranean has migrated from the Atlantic." is this better? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Quick response there. --Ettrig (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy and Morphology

This is from the anatomy and morphology section in the article.

"The heart-shaped carapace is thick and bony and covered by non-overlapping scutes at the seam lines. Typically, there are 11 or 12 pairs of marginal scutes, 5 pairs of both vertebral and costal scutes, and a nuchal scute that contacts the costals. The carapace is connected to the plastron by 3 pairs of inframarginal scutes that lack pores. The plastron itself features paired gular, humeral, pectoral, abdominal, femoral, and anal scutes. Hatchlings' carapaces have 3 keels while the plastrons have 2."

This is very confusing and cumbersome to read. I didn't write this, so I'm not entirely sure how this should be correctly phrased, but surely there is a better way to do it. Any suggestions? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing a Bill

For the fact of the loggerhead being the South Carolina state reptile I found the bill which made it so. How would that be cited?http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess107_1987-1988/bills/1006.htm Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Sorry for my lack of attention to wikipedia this past week. Anyway, I want to get down to business now. The state of the references is awful. Except for the ones that the AP Bio project has put up, they are mostly poorly cited and even broken links. They are stated under a ref list and I don't see a way that I can edit the references that we did not add. Does anyone know how to do this?--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of attention to this comment. Anyway, I would like to respond now. The only, and I mean the only, thing I know about references is that you can only control what gibberish you see at the bottom by manipulating the in-line citations. Therefore, you must fix those before you see improvement at the bottom of the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradise Islands

Very few readers will know what the Paradise islands are. Maybe change to Bazaruto Archipelago. --Ettrig (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Loggerhead sea turtle

Given that this species is called loggerhead sea turtle in the article, I think the title of the article should be Loggerhead sea turtle. (two letters from capital to common) --Ettrig (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How would one go about changing this? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It has something to do with the "move" tab located at the top of the page, but I'm pretty sure an admin. has to make the transfer.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I submitted it to be moved. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't the title be Loggerhead turtle. That's what it is in the dictionary. Is there a loggerhead land turtle. Just something to consider... Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, if your research concerns the Loggerhead sea turtle than that's what I think it should be called.--NYMFan69-86(talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the loggerhead sea turtle is the only kind of loggerhead turtle, so I think the title should be "loggerhead turtle". Also, one of our main sources names it as "Loggerhead turtle" [9] Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I would entitle the article "Loggerhead turtle" and mention (in the first sentence of the lead offset by parenthesis) that it is also commonly called the "Loggerhead sea turtle."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How would that work? The scientific name is in parenthesis now. "The loggerhead turtle (also loggerhead sea turtle or Caretta caretta) is the world's most-studied and well-known sea-turtle." ? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was meant to address what was to happen if the article's name was changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) ----

I understand that. I was trying to figure out how to appropriately rewrite the first sentence if we did change the article name. It seems awkward with two other names in parenthesis. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking around, it seems the general consensus is that you put the common name first, the italicized Latin name next (in parentheses), than (this time not in parentheses) the phrase "also commonly called...". Hope this is correct and/or helps the cause.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, something like this: "The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) also commonly called the loggerhead sea turtle, is the world's most-studied and well-known sea-turtle." Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however, someone might ask you to make "loggerhead sea turtle" bold or something (it may actually be: "The loggerhead turtle(Caretta caretta) also commonly called the loggerhead sea turtle, is the world's most-studied and well-known sea-turtle"), but I can't be sure--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The page move request was denied... I'm not sure why.Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh...damn.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't worthy of a title change. None of the other sea turtle articles have "sea" turtle in the title though. There wasn't any explanation for the page not being moved, the edit summary was just "removed incorrect db flag." Maybe I'll try again later. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I don't know than, maybe it can be tried again later on.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Authors of web pages

I have been trying to find credible resources for this article. I find articles from websites such as turtles.org that do not state the author on the article. I would assume that this would be a credible resource; however, it is very difficult to find an author for large organizational websites such as this. Does anyone have any suggestions on ways to find the author or ways to substitute something instead of stating a person?

Gallery

Is there a general consensus of the use of the "Photo Gallery" at the end of the article. It does not seem appropriate for an FA article; but I'm uncertain? There are an infinite number of unclear statements and statements that could easily be mis-interpreted. Will not any of my students read with care and attempt to clarify or simplify? I've not seen a topic chosen yet with such a high potential for FA status (vast amounts of references - so no whining allowed there). Even I could make this FA - what are you waiting on? divine intervention? --JimmyButler (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the gallery as well, but it seems like some of the pictures there are better than the ones used throughout the article. I am also skeptical of the heading "Importance to humans."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no excuse for not editing, except for lack of time (bad excuse). Needless to say, I will be doing more editing ASAP. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree NYMF, they should be removed from the gallery and embedded in the appropriate sections of the text. A gallery section is for those too lazy to deal with formatting.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated some of the pictures into the article. If we don't use them should we just remove them? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you seem to have picked the best images, which was a good move.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

Once in the ocean, hatchling loggerheads travel by means of ocean currents. This is the type of misleading and vague statements to which I referred above. With no prior knowledge, I would assume they are drifters and incapable of swimming. I would also assume the currents propel them to the Sargasso Sea- which is doubtful since the Gulf Stream would sweep them northward (at least in populations hatch along the extreme northern range of the east coast. No doubt, when possible, the weak swimming hatchlings take advantage of currents to reach their destination; as all ocean travelers would do. There is also the problem that they are cosmopolitan species... certainly the Pacific and Indian Ocean populations don't head to the Sargasso Sea.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More clarity

"Originally, during the most recent glacial period, the beaches of Northern Florida to North Carolina were too cold for loggerheads. About 12,000 years ago, the climate started a warming trend, allowing loggerheads to move up and colonize these northern beaches.^[1] As a result, nesting females in this northern range are part of a different genetic population than those from the rest of Florida.^[1]"

I'd like to see the source for this, it makes sense that populations in different oceans would have genetic differences, but not this. Vancemiller(talk · contribs · count · email) 00:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Format

Whats up with the reference section; I'm certain this format of stacked citation templates (view in edit mode and you will see) is not conventional. I recommend someone decide what format is appropriate for FA and adapt it to this article before it gets too chaotic. Otherwise it will very challenging to clean up prior to any potential FA attempt.--JimmyButler (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC

What we're doing seems to be ok. See Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references. It shows the citation material in the reference section to reduce clutter in the text. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on referencing. I like putting them at the end, but given that so many are just different pages from a few works, why not adopt the{{rp}} approach that allows you to put the page # inline without creating a separate, redundant reference? Lfstevens (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of using {{rp}} if you're planning on taking this to WP:FAC. I don't believe any current FA uses it. Dr pda (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Should something be changed? We're modeling the references after the bog turtle article (which is very close to FA). Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One rather unimportant thing

~~Why does the caption for the picture in "Life history" (the one with two turtles) read "A hatchling loggerhead sea turtle?"~~--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Any suggestions for expansion of the opening paragraph? Any general information that we should add to the opening paragraph? Thank you.--TimHAllstr (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It should summarize the entire article. See Wikipedia:Lead_section. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think what I added was sufficient? --TimHAllstr(talk) 19:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the lead should be much longer than a paragraph. Don't worry about it now, we should finish the article first then write the lead since the lead is a summary of the article. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Section Title

I renamed the Mating to Mating and Nesting because it has information on both of these activities. Is this acceptable or do we need to subhead these as two separate topics?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Subheadings

I saw that subheadings were added to the threats section. Is it a good idea to do this? Remember that it has been said that it breaks up the flow of the article.

As long as there is sufficient information in each section it is fine. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree V. There is a Major Heading "Conservation" then another similar Heading "Conservation Efforts" then an eclectic list of subheadings - including "other predators" which is not necessarily a conservation issue. This needs to be reconsidered. Any examples from other articles that may be incorporated?--JimmyButler (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The hawksbill turtle, the only FA sea turtle article has no subheadings under Conservation

The komodo dragon, an FA article, has an "in captivity" section so we may want to try this

We can't just remove the headings without rewriting the section. The hawksbill isn't necessarily the best model for this article either. There is a difference in the amount of available information. The size of the conservation section in this article is 3 or 4 times that of the hawksbill's. Subsections make this easier to read. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the subheadings should be limited to threats and conservation efforts? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think predators should go under conservation. Raccoons are "natural predators"; whereas conservation usually implies human interactions. I would address predators under ecology section. Also, this site is held in low regard - I guess an encyclopedia should not cite an encyclopedia... seek peer reviewed sources within the field if you truly expect FA.http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Caretta_caretta.html--JimmyButler (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Behavior" Heading for such things as Female - female aggression... which does not seem to fit in an ecology section.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the information about predators into ecology. Do you think that we should try to make another main topic for Behavior and put female-female aggression as a subheading underneath?--TimHAllstr (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ecology |iˈkäləjē| – 1 the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.

Going by this definition, behavioral relationships, such as female-female aggression should be classified under ecology. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we should make behavior a subheading and include female-female aggression under it.

Only make a behavior section if we have information for it. Currently, we have no other information for behavior. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely add info on behavior then. I think a female-female aggression subheading by itself seems kind of weak.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Translate

~~They may stay in these areas for many months feeding on floating material or from the sea floor.~~ What is the intent of the sentence under habitat?--JimmyButler (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Never mind - I took it out.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Is the review still up? 'cause I can give you more ideas if you want.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--TimHAllstr (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We've created a monster!--JimmyButler (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That cannot be fed! (if indeed you were talking about me :))--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)