Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle/Archive 3

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

FA and other things

Well, I thought the talk page should be archived, and I'm happy to see that we were able to pull this one up to GA. The next step would be FA. I am interested in doing this and was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for specific content or formatting issues I should take care of before I throw it up for a review. For example, I know that I need to get rid of a certain source and back the information up with a better source. Any suggestions before I put this up for an FA review would be greatly appreciated.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple things:

*There are several really short sections, such as, Predators and Threats. These should be merged into bigger sections, expanded, or, at worst, deleted (I got hit pretty hard for this).

I compressed the threats section so that human activity is part of threats since that is what threats generally includes. Is this sufficient?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That'll work.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the alt text: "alt=Map of the range of the loggerhead sea turtle."--I'm pretty sure this doesn't cut it (I was hit pretty hard for this as well).
Further copy-editing may be in order. Sentences such as, "Loggerhead sea turtles were once intensively hunted for their meat and eggs, but consumption has decreased due to worldwide illegality. Turtle meat and eggs in general are widely eaten today despite international regulations[59]" are hard to understand. Consumption of them has decreased but they are still "widely eaten?"

Fixed this specific instance. I think that a lot of stuff will be pointed out during the FA review process. I do not believe I am proficient enough in copy editing to do that myself.--TimHAllstr(talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Try as best you can to alternate the images left and right. Also, the turtles should face into the article (someone made that rule up, I think, and it has somehow gained traction on wikipedia).

Done Seems like the nit-picky thing that would be on an FA review.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more things need to be taken care of and more research has to be done...a nice summer project I suppose.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The image thing above is very minor and I doubt that would stop a FA.
I do think that clarification or re-writing on the subadult is required. Subadult in English is logically before adulthood, yet that is not the meaning meant in the article. So some work required on that.

Fixed I provided a brief explanation. Do you think it is sufficient?--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine your explanation is original reseearch that is not on p. 166 of James R Spotila's book. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be a few more things brought up, but the best thing is to be available and sort them out. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The image alternations is not really a problem with me, I just remember having to change them up in the bog article before FA.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions are very much appreciated.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any major objections, I think I am going to put this article up for FA review. Wish me luck and any advice you can offer along the way will be greatly appreciated.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. So far as I can tell it's well within range of being up to WP:FACR. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My only other advice (more like warning really) is that people out of nowhere are gonna hit you with references they'll want you to take a look at. Be prepared to read through hundreds of pages of stuff on the loggerhead sea turtle. Keep an open mind, don't get defensive, be prepared to compromise, and be tenacious and diligent. That's how FAs are attained.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator asked me to have a look Loggerhead sea turtle for FA. I can't help about MOS aspects as I disgree with parts for MOS. Most of "my" animal articles have been about phyla, but I've GA-reviewed species. Some questions:

At GA I start with coverage, mainly "are there gaps that jump out to me". As NYMFan69-86 just said, FAC can be harder. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
My next step is article structure, on the hypothesis (?) that a good structure minimises side-effects between (sub-)sections. So generally I place (sub-)sections that provide information before (sub-)sections that use that information. In this article I'd go: "Anatomy and morphology" (the adults); "Life history" and its sub-sections in that sequence; "Distribution", including difference between adults and eggs/juveniles; "Feeding", including difference between adults and eggs/juveniles; "Behavior", including differences ...; "Predators", including ...; "Disease and parasites" ...; "Conservation" ... --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
So far I've left back "Evolutionary history", mainly because it includes genetic differences and I would not expect molecular phylogeny studies of the loggerhead sea turtle before about 2006. I'd expect journals to be more up-to-date than books on this point. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
While I aim in prose style for "a bright 14-year old", I feel that the article is written at a lower level, with many short sentences that could be combined. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I also think I could make the prose more concise without sacrifing clarity. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You should make a copy of User:Philcha#Tools for your own toolbox. I now recommend this citation tool rather than refTools.
As you have already nom'd the article at FAC, you need to use the DAB checker and link checker immediately and fix any problems these reveal. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
OTOH I'd keep the alt text checker but delay using it, as alt text has been dropped from the FA criteria until that guideline is re-written. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I seem emphasise WP:V more than most - and even see if Google Books will let me check on books. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I delay checking/placing wikilinks until the rest is staple.
I check the lead last, as that makes it easy to see that the lead only summarises the main text - an eccentricity that a few editors joke about :-) --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Philcha, thank you for the high quality list of ideas. Consider User:Philcha#Tools copied. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan

The problem with selection of a species of world-wide distribution is becoming apparent with concerns raised on the FA page. A U.S. school editing with access to limited resources poses a problem; especially when the turtle is in our back yard - clearly bias has emerged. For example, the use of Turtle Excluder Devices may be limited to US waters; do you mention it? If so - are you now compelled to include strategies for protection in Australia. How do you contain the size of this beast and present a world view? It's a dilemma, I suspect faced by all cosmopolitan topics. Good luck with that one on your FA journey.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes very true. I think it would be helpful to read an FA article on another organism with cosmopolitan distribution.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some, they look dated. Bird, Bacteria, Fin whale, Humpback whale, Blue whale, Sei whale. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Run

"Hatchlings use the journey from nest to ocean to build strength for the coming swim. Helping them to reach the ocean bypasses this strength building exercise and lowers their chances of survival." Why do I find this difficult to swallow. The death toll in that run to the water is enormous. If any thing - I would suspect they are exhausted when the make it to the first wave. Strength conditioning is not instant - is it? How much physical gain does one get in a single suicide run?--JimmyButler (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the source meant that if they don't have the experience of traveling from the nest to the ocean they are doomed anyway, but that sentence is worded rather confusingly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spotila, James R. (2004). Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation.Do we have access to this book? If so, "raccoons destroy 85% of nearby nest"? Nearby to what... is it: in areas inhabited by raccoons, typical 85% of the nest are destroyed. I'm wondering if this stat is specific to single location and expanded here to suggest globally?--JimmyButler (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I currently have access to this book. The direct quotation is as follows: "In the United States, raccoons (Procyon lotor) are loggerheads' primary predator, while in Australia European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a common nest invader. South African side-striped jackals (Canis adustus) and honey badgers (Mellivora capensis) can seriously reduce the number of hatchlings produced in that country. In some places predators destroy almost all of the nests on a beach. Raccoons have been recorded destroying up to 80 percent of the nests on two barrier islands in South Carolina, and 75-85 percent on Cape Sable, Florida." I think I made the mistake of generalizing some of this information way too much when I added it.--TimHAllstr (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, clearly Raccoons can't be much of an issue outside US as Raccoons don't exist in large areas elsewhere. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to de-US-centricize the article. Hopefully I will be able to make this a more worldly article.--TimHAllstr (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Water temperature effects the sea turtle's metabolic rate. The article addresses the effects of cold water - is there an impact of higher temperatures?--JimmyButler (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The book gave more information on the effects of cold water temperature but I put in what I found that seemed important about warmer water temperature.--TimHAllstr (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

~~Dipteran larvae is that a fly?~~-- Whats wrong with saying Fly larvae? JimmyButler (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Nothing except that it sounds nowhere near as cool, of course.--TimHAllstr (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow what a difference in references "The over-all range is 23-198, with a mean of 110 per clutch." Miller source vs. the 28 in the article from Spotila! I think the 28 is way too low ... can you check the book again?--JimmyButler (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this may be due to misinterpretation on my part. The book says loggerheads lay an average of 3.9 clutches of about 112 eggs. I assumed that this meant overall, but obviously, I was wrong.--TimHAllstr (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed--TimHAllstr (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Predators

I think it want to be made clear if the predators, destroy the nests, the young or adults. One imagines it's the nests in all cases but the wording leaves that unclear. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I made this more clear.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

pdf archive list

Just to be sure I have archived the pdf's

Italics in sources

Italics: where the source is a print journal or newspaper the name should be italicised, otherwise not. Check throughout for consistency in this.

Which sources are from print journal or newspaper? We should make a list and check them for consistency. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We didn't use any print journals or newspapers, however we may have used some online journals and newspapers. Would those also need to be italicized? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers aren't online, even if a copy is online, the online journals I'm unsure about and have asked the requester. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm pretty sure we didn't use any newspapers, so I'll just wait to find out if the journals need changing. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the only raised issue not indicated as done. I think there are no papers. Online journals are not to be italicised. So no references are to be italicised and so that can be marked as done? Regards,SunCreator ^(talk) 15:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Predator section

I'm confused about how to address the issue of the primary predators. Would it be best to just delete the information about "primary predators" to avoid having to list one for every single area of their range?--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean merge primary predators with predators. if so yes remove what is duplicated. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the duplicated and deleted information about primary predators in specific locations. I thought this would keep the article from being too biased if I only include specific areas.--TimHAllstr(talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The list from the Ernst resource is massive - but states "predators from around the world". I would state the same - The loggerhead turtle has numerous predators throughout the world - including "the list". The statement on the shark attacks on females was not referencing a specific area - the way I read it ...40% of females world-wide have wounds that appear shark inflicted. In making the list you will have to generalize some groups - otherwise it will literally be the longest section of any article on Wikipedia. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some very long lists. Could the groups be split up to those that are a predator to the loggerheads at certain points? Like the predator to the nest/beach and the predator at sea? If sources allow of course. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Mr. Butler on the shark attacks. I commented about that on the FAC page. I state which predators attack which levels of development of loggerheads if that is what you are referring to SunCreator.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph on this structured in an easy to understand way now. The odd sentences at the end are, well - odd. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree : Ernst breaks it down by eggs & nestlings / journey to the water / open ocean.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had as well.--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Miller 1988, p. 52

Ref 49 say ^ Miller 1988, p. 52, but Miller 1988 is not listed, is this Miller 2000 perhaps? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it cannot be that. Miller 200 only has 47 pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this applies here, but one needs to cite the pages of the article/book, not of the PDF or website or whatever.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...What? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know if this applies here, but when you cite a PDF, you have to be sure to cite the pages of the written text, not the page of the PDF itself.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So, do we need to find print versions of all the PDFs we've used? Whenever I cited a page in a PDF I used the page numbers that were "printed" along with all the other text, not the sequential page numbers starting with the title page. Is that what you mean? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. The pdf is fine, just use the page number viewable on the document page not the page number allocated by the pdf viewer. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We still have a problem with this reference that does not exist. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

I'm not sure where this reference came from, there's no mention of the information it cites in the "Miller 2000" reference. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's from Dodd p52. I realised that after noticing the name of the reference was "synopsis52" after his book. Problem is the wording doesn't meet the article content. Dodds says "Assuming these females take 15-30 years to reach maturity ... etc.". So I think that information should be removed. The alternative is to use this but I suspect that is not a reliable source. One thing is clear from both sources is that we are talking only of female sexual maturity anyhow. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been a difficult area for me personally to find stable information on, because there are conflicts in information. For example, in the Spotila book, it states that the loggerhead reaches sexually maturity between 27 and 35 years, but then it also says that the South African population of females reaches sexual maturity from ages 17-30.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I recommend you use Spotila because Dodd is not really saying anything. Dodd's numbers are an assumed guess saying there isn't any information..that was 1988, and Spotila was 2004. Regards,SunCreator ^(talk) 23:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Was the information about female sexual maturity taken out of the lead because it was not needed there or because the there was this information conflict?--TimHAllstr (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The information in the lead was incorrect, so it was removed. If you have correct information then you can put it back in the way it was before. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">{{SUBST:user8|Vancemiller}}</span> (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

I've only skimmed the lead (on my third or fourth pass of the article) and I noticed something. You switch from singular to plural several times. Take these for example:

"Adult loggerhead sea turtles weigh approximately 135 kilograms (300 lb). Their skin color ranges from yellow to brown, and their shells are typically reddish-brown. The loggerhead is considered an endangered species and is protected by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature."
"The loggerhead sea turtle has a low reproductive rate; females lay an average of four egg clutches while nesting and then become quiescent, producing no eggs for two to three years. Loggerheads have"

I'm fairly sure this needs to be consistent (I know "...the loggerhead sea turtle..." can get redundant, but its a pronoun agreement thing that needs to be fixed. On a positive note, the article gets better every time I read it!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a few occurrences, however there are many more yet to be found. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Table Addition

I created this table from data located here: [[1]] It is an Australia Government agency (expands our global reference pool). Think it can be worked in under distribution?--JimmyButler (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Population Distribution^[1]

Ocean	Location	Number of Nest sites	Population Trends
Atlantic Ocean	Western Atlantic	1,000	unknown
	Brazil	4,000	stable
	Caribbean	1,000–3,000	vary between countries
	South-west Florida and Florida panhandle	5,000 to 6,000	stable or increasing
	Southern Florida	62,000	stable or increasing
	Northern Florida to North Carolina	6,200	stable or declining
Indian Ocean	South Africa	428	increasing
	Oman	20,000–40,000	unknown
	Western Australia	1,000- 2,000	unknown
Pacific Ocean	Japan	2,500	varies between beaches
Pacific Ocean	Eastern Australia	500	declining
Mediterranean Sea	Greece and Turkey (90%)	3,300 to 7,000	unknown

Citation

^ Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010). "Caretta caretta in Species Profile and Threats Database". Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Archived from the original on 2010-5-30. Retrieved 2010-05-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This looks great. Definitely should be worked into the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we work this table in specifically or just the information?--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If we were to use this table, some of the ambiguity in population trends should be worked out. Do any other FA articles incorporate tables similar to this? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. For me I feel as if it has great info, but the table itself seems kind of "bulky" for an FA article. Maybe I'm wrong.--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've leave it for now unless it's requested. It raises some questions, like Cyprus being missing, or maybe it's included in the 90% Turkey? Whether to put references on every piece of data or in the heading etc due to the effects on keeping references correct if someone adding/amending it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The data is from a single source - just converted into table from paragraph form. It makes is crystal clear where the turtles are plus it is an Australian source. However, it is very cumbersome - which is a problem. I wonder if it could be "hidden" like the taxonomy box with that long list?--JimmyButler (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be hidden. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, is there an official opinion of whether this should be included or not? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections, but I would say there is a small risk that it could become a soft target to find faults. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I included it in the article. If there are any issues with it then we can correct them or simply remove the table, so no harm done. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">{{SUBST:user8|Vancemiller}}</span> (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the nest numbers in the table match the nest numbers in the text? Which source is more recent? Currently there are some significant differences. Upon further review I have found that the information in the table is from 2003 and earlier, the information in the text from the Spotila reference is from 2004. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC

Conflicting information is unimpressive. The table says loggerhead population in Eastern Australia is in decline while the prose implies it's increasing slowly. Such things in an article are not desirable. You either remove one source as no longer applicable/out of date/etc, or you put one source but comment the other as a note. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to remove the table for now and update it with more recent information. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

reference format - programmer required

Evidence of a return journey came from an adult female loggerhead sea turtle named Adelita, who in 1996, equipped with a satellite tracking device made the 9,000-mile trip from Mexico across the Pacific to nesting grounds in Japan. Adelita was the first animal of any kind ever tracked across an ocean basin. V. can you cite at end of this paragraph (already added) with this source... who the man --- you the man! [[2]] It is PBS Nature... not a nerd journal; but still legit. Very interesting the connection between the eastern and western pacific populations.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

With so many informative external links on loggerheads - why is one of the only two web sites promoting tourism in Greece? [[3]]. That section needs to be addressed!--JimmyButler (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The website about Zakynthos covers the conservation efforts in that area. The other link is copyrighted pictures which could not be included in the article. Both are acceptable external links based on WP:EL. Are you suggesting we incorporate more links? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Remaining concerns

These are things that either haven't fully been answered/explained/fixed. Most of these I just grabbed from other places...after this I'll support:

- Further copy-editing may be in order. Sentences such as, "Loggerhead sea turtles were once intensively hunted for their meat and eggs, but consumption has decreased due to worldwide illegality. Turtle meat and eggs in general are widely eaten today despite international regulations[59]" are hard to understand. Consumption of them has decreased but they are still "widely eaten?"

Fixed this specific instance. I think that a lot of stuff will be pointed out during the FA review process. I do not believe I am proficient enough in copy editing to do that myself.--TimHAllstr(talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This was left some time ago...I still see some grammatical issues with the text.

Done I fixed that paragraph. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Female loggerheads first reproduce between the ages of 17-33,[54] The loggerhead mating period lasts up to six weeks.[55] Loggerhead sea turtles court their mates, but these behaviors have not been thoroughly examined.[56] Nuzzling, biting, head movements, and flipper movements are forms of male courtship behavior.[56] Studies suggest that females produce cloacal pheromones to indicate reproductive ability.[56] Males approach females and attempt to mount them, while females resist. Next, the male and female begin to circle each other. If the male has competitors, the female may let the males struggle with each other. The winner thenmounts the female. Other courting males bite the mounted male during mating, damaging his flippers and tail, possibly exposing his bones. Such damage can require weeks to heal, causing the male to dismount.[56] When he mounts her, the male's curved claws damage the shoulders of the female's shell. He may also injure her by biting her neck during mating.[56]

There's a lot of mounting and mating going on in this paragraph, which makes for an awkward read...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Make completely sure that the singular plural thing is taken care of.

I'll read through the article to check for this. If you notice anything just post it here and I'll check it out. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Evolutionary history section should explain why two subspecies are recognized (or maybe that can be done in the Taxonomy section and here it could be discussed how the subspecies came about).

Included in the taxonomy section because that was where the information originally was. Do you think it would be best to put it under evolutionary history?--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

~~No, it is more of a taxonomic issue, I was just wondering if you could turn up anything about how the differences in the two populations came about~~.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The separation of the populations is already in the evolutionary history section. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops...that works for me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

~~"Escalation typically follows four steps"--Do the first two steps have specific names? The third and fourth are sparring and separation...right?~~

I added "first" and "second" to clarify. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the first would be called initial contact and the second confrontation? If this is the case, it is well clarified in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with the next few sentences about average and maximum length.

I'm not really sure what needs to be done here. Can you elaborate further? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I was confused by these sentence in several ways: "Nesting loggerheads have a straight carapace length of 70–109 centimeters (28–43 in). Seventy centimeters is the minimum size for breeding, although not all loggerheads begin breeding at this size. Therefore, carapace length is not a reliable indicator of sexual maturity.[52]" First, you say previously that the loggerhead reaches "a length range of 70 to 95 centimeters (28 to 37 in)," which leads me to believe that nesting loggerheads are somehow bigger than non-nesting loggerheads. Second, the wording of the second sentence may throw some readers off. It seems like your saying that 70 cm is the smallest size at which a loggerhead is ready to breed but that they may be bigger than this when they start breeding. Well...we already knew that because you gave us a range of lengths. Third, its placement (or at least its wording) is somewhat awkward. Are the readers to assume that loggerheads reach this length at "ages 28–33" or at "ages 17–30" or at "unknown" ages?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworded Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a little better, but why is this phrase even necessary: "however not all loggerheads begin breeding at the minimum size?" Also, I am still unsure if the length correlates to the age in any significant way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed "however not all loggerheads begin breeding at the minimum size." Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also unsure how the length correlates to the age. I would assume that the loggerhead begins breeding within the age range specified but reaches the length required for breeding before that time. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

~~Mating-induced ovulation is a bit much to grasp. Is there an article (or perhaps a heading on an article) that can be found that explains this?~~

There is an article: Induced ovulation but it doesn't really explain it correctly. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think it should be clarified a little in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted speculation reference in the wings

"This raises concerns over the connection between rapid global temperature changes and the possibility of population extinction." I'm waiting for V. to format the reference from this source: Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 91, pp. 7487-7490, August 1994 Population Biology Climate change and temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles (eticon/population demography/rate of evolutin/sex ratio/turtles)FREDRIC J. JANZEN* Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 Communicated by Gordon H. Orians, April 29, 1994 (received for review January 3, 1994) [[4]].

I suggest the connection between the concern over global warming and extinction be returned to article based on this passage:

The causal influence of annual variation in climatic temperature on cohort sex ratios in this population of painted turtles serves as a clear empirical example of the biological impact portended by rapid global temperature change. This study demonstrates that the demography of populations of species with temperature-dependent sex determination may be directly sensitive even to modest deviations in the local thermal environment. These results are entirely consistent with earlier work on a nesting beach of endangered loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), wherein 87-99% of hatchlings from the rookery in each of 3 years were females because sand temperatures at nest level were high (39). If such strongly female-biased cohorts lead to highly skewed adult sex ratios, then the probability of population extinction may be greatly enhanced.

--JimmyButler (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been referenced and the "speculation" was restored. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking

I had forgotten about the concerns regarding linking from my own experience with FA. The idea of a maximum degree of inter-connectivity between articles are not shared by all. I guess the blue text can appear disruptive and cumbersome. A valid point. I suggest - de-linking the "common knowledge" information and link the technical terminology. Also scan for duplicate links. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What would qualify as common knowledge? Also, I'm confused with linking places. Here's an example:

Nesting extends as far north as Virginia, as far south as Brazil, and as far east as the Cape Verde Islands.^[1]

I know where Virginia and Brazil are, but not the Cape Verde Islands. So, should all places be linked or only places some people would not know of. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest anything unclear remain linked (like Cape Verde Islands, unlike Brazil)-- your mileage may vary, it's not a big deal, but the idea is to the reduce the amount of low-value links and the sea of blue, to focus on high-value or necessary links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed many unnecessary wlinks. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing one or two links may of been appropriate but the edits are way to severe. Fails WP:UNDERLINK now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored. This is now okay. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)