This is an archive of past discussions about Painted 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.
I've owned a painted turtle for 25 yers. She is 28 years old and very healthy. There may not be enough research to accurately estimate how long they are likely live in captivity.
Does anyone know if the painted turtle's shell hurts them if it gets attacked? What if part of the shell breaks off around the edge?
Any info on this subject would be greatly appreciated!
I know for sliders and painted turtles that they will lose scutes as they grow...this differs from land turtles like box turtles that will have all them on...thats why it is more difficult to tell the age of an aquatic turtle then it is a box turtle...because in box turtles the scutes make rings like tree rings every year and that is one way to tell how old they are...
The turtle shell is made out of protein called keratin like our hair and finger nails, therefore it has very little nerve cells there, my best guess is they probably feel more pressure on the shell then pain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.184.50 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, keratin is composed of dead cells that receive no blood...they also don't have nerves and, therefore, are not pain receptors.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Only the thin very outer layer of the shell is composed of keratin. Besides that the shell is made of bone (fused ribs + dermal bone) and has both blood vessels and nerve endings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I made the Care section, and merged the feeding section into it, if anyone else thinks it looks better the other way, feel free to revert it.
It needs citation, the Rule of thumb part came from a pet store. Max38 —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The rule of thumb as stated is ambiguous. Mud is needed by the turtle, but not recommended? I think I can decipher the intent of the sentence, but this interpretation could prove fatal to the little critter. Could you please clarify? I am lacking in my herpetology skills and have a small boy who has made a new friend. Said turtle could well outlive me and I would like to see that happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.172.62 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section, keeping the article more scientific. Another concern of mine is the reference formatting...just URLs are unacceptable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, but I think paragraphs would be okay as well...just a separate subheading for each under a section entitled Subspecies?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Just informing everyone that this page will be move to Painted turtle shortly per cap issue. Will then be inline with FA articles such as Bog turtle. This has been done per a users request. ZooPro 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Done Article has been moved. ZooPro02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The image in the lead looks extremely strange in my web browser...does anyone else have this problem (it like totally throws off the structure of the words/contents box)?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand the importance/use of the chart listing the subspecies, but it's clunky and breaks up the flow of the page. Formatting? Same goes for the one under "evolutionary record."
Is it possible to align the table under Taxonomy to the right and then wrap text around it, as with an image? (as has been done with theEvolutionary History and Fossil Record table)
See what Strombolli thinks...if you decide after discussion to change it/undo it then go ahead (I won't mind being reverted on that). My edit was to show how it is done so those who don't know can learn. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, formatting of pictures under "Description" is questionable. I understand the necessity of having all four, but would it be possible to relocate them in a way that does not disrupt the reading so much?
Yes...formatting has been the biggest problem with the article since the beginning (why does there have to be four subspecies!?). I'm reluctant to put the four images into a gallery (leaves no room for alt text), and am unsure of what to do with the tables, which seem to be effective, but eye soars (?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made the two large tables collapsible. I think it looks a little better, however, I would like the borders of the drop down menu and the table to be the same color, and also for the table to be centered withing the menu. Does anyone know how to do this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Need to replace pictures that were misidentified as Painted Turtles. I don't know how to do this yet. The picture of the Eastern PT is actually a Chicken turtle, ([Deirochelys reticularia]). The picture of basking turtles under behaviour and ecology shows Sliders ([Trachemys scripta]). Matt Keevil (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This most likely means that it needs to be straightened out at the Commons as well. Here is the link to what has been categorized as "painted turtle" over there. If you find a suitable image, get its name for replacing in the link. Take a look at WP:Image to learn the usage. At the commons they need to be recategorized. If you are going to work at the commons, you will probably want to make sure you have a unified account - see WP:SUL. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced/removed the images mentioned above. As far as commons, I do have an account but am unsure of what to do about this situation.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about that pic. There are 2 things to do with each pic at the commons. If it is named incorrectly, then it needs to be renamed/moved. Check your welcome template on your Commons talk page - under heading "Made a mistake?" to see how to do that. The other thing is for correctly-named files which need to be properly categorized. I see a note on your talk page which describes that. You want to make sure to find the appropriate cat and not leave images orphaned. I personally use hotcat at the commons...you can enable that through "My preferences" ==> "Gadgets" ==> "Tools for categories" ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely Western NOT Eastern. Which is what one would expect, given that the pic is from Iowa. Both midland and Eastern will have more red around the neck than the ones in the picture. Eastern PTs can be destinguished by the arrangement of the costal scutes relative to the vertebrals so that the major carapace scutes are in straight rows of three across the back. All other turtles in the world have an alternating pattern. There is a good picture in Ernst and Lovich 2009 and this one here seems to be a C.p.picta: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chrysemys_picta_-_Painted_turtle.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks gentlemen. I'll look through the images over at commons and see what I can clean up. I won't add any other images (to the article or to commons) until the identity of the subspecies is confirmed. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad you caught these image errors. What we really need are Eastern and/or Western Painted Turtle pictures. I went to the Commons and fixed some of the errors you mentioned and requested renaming of three images. DGERobertson 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Matt Keevil...those pictures are all phenomenal. I think it's safe to say most if not all will be used. Great work. Yes, right now, as far as images go, all we need is at least one verifiable one of each subspecies, and (later perhaps) a dist. map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure where to get a dist. map that has an open license since I doubt the IUCN has evaluated them. The picture under movement with the caption "exiting a waterbody" is an Eastern Painted so I think that we could use that as an image for that subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That pictures nice for movement because its leaving a pond and for the description because its an Eastern painted turtle (one not represented in that section). I'll actually be taking a few pictures this weekend of painted turtles, so I'll see if I can get one of its face for the description section. Thanks again. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read through this article, and I must say that it looks pretty good. However, I haven't yet given a comprehensive look at certain aspects, so it's a little too soon for me to decide anything. I'm very busy lately, so please bear with me if it takes me a while to finish reviewing. Cheers, TwilightHelryx03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Prose is mostly decent, but still needs work in some places. Try to avoid including trivial details. Here are a few things that I'm particularly concerned about:
There are a few unnecessary parentheses in Population features. Try to integrate parenthesized parts into the rest of the sentences or move them to new sentences.
"It is diurnal, becoming active at sunrise when it basks (for thermoregulation) for several hours before feeding." This sentence is a bit awkward. Try to better integrate the thermoregulation part into the sentence.
"The turtles generally emerge from early March to mid-April (depending on how long cold temperatures persist), when the ice cover of the water-body (if indeed it hibernated in water) has completely disappeared." First parentheses (italicized) could be better integrated into sentence. Second parentheses (also italicized) seems to be original research, though I can't tell because of the source. If the source does say so, please reword it.
This is by no means a complete list; you may wish to seek the aid of a copy-editor.
The charts in the Taxonomy and Fossil Record sections are informative, but I've seen GA's similar to this article containing the same type of information well expressed in prose. See if you can do that.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article has a very good potential. However, there are still issues that need to be resolved, including some copy-editing ones. If you can do so within the next 7 days, I'll gladly pass this article. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. =) --TwilightHelryx22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Replies
Parenthetic material from Population features has been incorporated with the regular text.
"It is diurnal, becoming active at sunrise when it basks (for thermoregulation) for several hours before feeding" has been changed to "It is diurnal and starts its day at sunrise, when it basks for several hours before feeding."
The third sentence you brought up was awkwardly worded, it has been changed to "The turtles emerge from early March to mid-April, when the ice cover of the water-body (if indeed it hibernated in water) has completely disappeared." All its saying is that, for those painted turtles that do hibernate underwater (not all of them do), emergence happens after the ice cover has melted.
A copy-editor is being contacted as I write this sentence.
That's good. =) As for the "original research" comment, I was thrown off by the way it was written and, in hindsight, shouldn't have labeled it as such. =X Anyways, keep up the good work! Cheers, TwilightHelryx00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have another question: I'm all for proper references, but I'm unsure how number 55 ("Species Identification") is incorrect? Looking through, it's cited the same way current refs 1, 5, and 43 are. Am I missing something? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that would be a case of "accidental overlook". That would be a note to myself be more careful. Anyways, they aren't proper formatting for citations. The formatting should be using MLA-style formatting, which the templates are set up by. ;) --TwilightHelryx02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble figuring out what other information I can include other than the URL, page title, and date accessed. Is that a clue to not use those websites?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Or do you mean you can't find those info? If that's the case, then you technically can do without, though there should be a publisher somewhere.--TwilightHelryx03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, will reformat within the next ten minutes probably. Also, the information from the egg production chart has been incorporated into the prose. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's talk table
Okay, the second one (concerning the fossil record) I think can be incorporated into the prose much the same way it is in the lead: "remains from many areas within its current range have been found and dated to as far back as 16,300,000 to 13,600,000 BP." Would this work, even though it's not nearly as precise?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking again, I don't think we need to get rid of this chart. The info inside would make the prose too wordy. Still, I think that you should include some information into the paragraph. The one you showed me would work. =)--TwilightHelryx22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Great! Tomorrow I'll reformat the article to get that done. Beyond that, a thorough copy-edit is needed and some other MoS stuff, right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Remaining concerns
I've been going through and copy-editing...are there any particular sections/paragraphs/sentences that are really bad? Also, is there anything more to concern B above?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be any tight concentration at the moment. However, most paragraphs have at least one sentence that needs copyediting. All MoS issues appear to be fixed. =) --TwilightHelryx20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Google books this 1952 book is published by Comstock Publishing Associates a division of Cornell University Press. Albert Hazen Wright (and Anna Allen Wright) are acknowledged for the majority of photographic illustrations rather then as editor. Also the chapter heading 'Genus CHRYSEMYS' is not found, and is seems to be "Genus Chrysemys---The Painted Turtles" starting page 213 which matches. Regards, SunCreator(talk)00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding my errors. I've made the changes and just took out editor altogethor (I think that's legal as only one other source has an editor). Thanks again, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
In different parts of the article, we have different orders of discussing the subspecies. To make it easier on the reader, I want to use the same order, everytime unless there is some special (compared and contract, for example) reason to do otherwise. What makes sense to me is eastern, midland, southern, western. Parts of the article are already in this order. I will fix the rest. This makes sense to me since it would seem to match the order the animals were discovered by biologists as the Americas were settled from Atlantic to Pacific. Also, it puts "picta picta" first (which just by name seems like it comes first.) TCO (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You can change anything back if you don't like it. I'm just messing with it and may change it in other ways, myself anyhow. Basic issue is that there were these big blobs of text on something that is a pretty technical topic. Need subsections or bullets or bolding or at least different paragraphs. Let me keep messing with it and we can change anything right back, especially if it violates wikiness or some GA criteria I'm not familiar with. But main concept is to make it more reader-friendly, somehow. It'll still be your baby, regardless! TCO (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha. It looks really good and I totally approve of the new paragraph structures. Have you really been working for the past six hours!!!??? You savage... :-D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
metric to English conversion template
We should either abbreviate BOTH English and metric units, or spell BOTH out. (my vote is abbreviate both.) Also, I think it looks much better to show a range with the numbers and a dash than to word it out. At first I thought we needed to nuke the conversion template, but now it looks like it may have the functionality to do that. Checking it out...TCO (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Description and Distribution and habitat look a bit strange on my screen. The headings, images, and map all collide and make for an awkward read. Does anyone else have this problem?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, such things are to be expected when in major copy-edit. Positions of images can easily be adjusted when copy-edit is done. Regards, SunCreator(talk)00:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I'm editing, was coming up with some content questions. I started a list and was going to dump them on you, but since you all are watching my red pen, maybe better to give them to you as they come up. (As always, just take them FWIW.) TCO (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
chromosomes
The 50 chromosomes totally reads as an isolated factoid (and not just because I put it in its own paragraph). Let's either kill it or come up with something more interesting about it. For instance, how does this compare to other turtles (same, different)? I did a quick search but could not find the info. Anyhow, almost none of the rest of the article is about the details of the cellular biology of the turtle.TCO (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It was put in an odd place...and I appologize for that. Both the bog and wood have 50 chromosomes, so, considering these turtles are all closely related, it may be interesting to note that they all have the same number. Perhaps something like, "The painted turtle's DNA is arranged in 50 chromosomes, as is the case with the closely related bog and wood turtle."--appropriate citations would be applied of course.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a little more interesting. If you could figure out where some divergence occured that would be the most interesting. for instance, if ALL turtles are 50, then the factoid really should go in the article for turtle. Wiki didn't have that much and I tried a little googling, but didn't find the answer. TCO (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it gets complicated quick. Looking at some other turtles' profile here I see that most of them have 50, but several others are thought to have 52...and others different numbers. What to do.... NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's sweet they way you could show me a google books source. I did a search by word and the species definitely vary in how many chromosomes they have. I think I can finesse some sort of paragraph to say how it differs from other turtles. I may combine it with the jaw shape paragrapth as well.
Are there sources which are more specific about the chromosomes than just the number? I've often been able to write a paragraph or so about the features of the chromosomes; e.g., at Miniopterus griveaudi and Lundomys. Ucucha18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There certainly are. I've found many PDFs that go into great detail about this however, I'm reluctant to include much of it because a) (as said above) there's a question about its relevancy and b) I have a hard time understanding most of it. Of course, I would be willing to compromise and include some info, it's just I don't know how much is too much.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you just say how many are acrocentric, metacentric, telocentric, etcetera (those may sound very technical, but really they just refer to the relative length of the chromosomal arms), and what the condition of the sex chromosomes is (if any—how does sex determination in turtles even work?), you'll already have some good basic information, without needing to go into the details of G-banding or whatever. Ucucha19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any more info about the extremity morphology (claws, legs, tail etc.)? Like to build that one jaw shape paragraph up in content. Maybe some comparison to snappers or box turtles? I donno...TCO (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume this is correct, and make clearer in article. But let me know if it is actually tail to head (extended). TCO (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
1. "River and large lake populations are often more dispersed because distant travel is common."
A. Does more dispersed mean "lower density"?
B. I'll leave as the source says, but the science geek in me kinda wonders if low density would be a result of less shallows and therefore less aquatic vegetation (center of a lake, center would be too deep and skew the calculations even if the turtles were dense along the shore. Also, the center of a river would be moving fast, although not clear to me if that is any problem for the turtle or more an issue for the plants. Also, geek in me wonders if the long movement on lakes and rivers is just becuase of this issue of less shallow area in reach, and/or perhaps just becuase there are longer inherent water distances without getting onto the land.
2. The stuff about more old than young kinda threw me at first. Can't have a stable population with that dynamic--where would the old ones come from? But I think I understand the point after reading the rest of the paragraph (yearly mortality rates are lower for older turtles). Will fix up, assuming that's the point.
Good catches. My sources are iffy on both these issues. First, more dispersed does mean lower density: the Ernst book noted specific large lake populations that had numbers as low as 8 individuals per hectare while also noting shallow pond populations that had numbers up to like 850. As for a reason why...it never says, so I'm hesitant to speculate. Second, the young vs. old numbers threw me off too...how could there be less young than old turtles? The source says hatchlings and juveniles were harder to find; if this is the case, than it can be scratched because it has no merit (it means that there are likely more young ones, just the current research method used can't account for them).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if we could a lit bit more content into this section, that would be of interest to the general reader. (All of course, expecting this is in your ready references, not asking for you to dig up new fossils!)
What was the ancestor of the painted turtle?
When did it split from the (probably closely related) cooters and sliders?
This might be a reach, but I wonder if we can fit the chromosome factoid in this part of the story? Like do cooters, sliders, and painted turtles all have 50, but more distant (in terms of evolution history) relatives tend to have other numbers?
Also is the Kansas-Nebraska restriction of the oldest fossils an artifact of geography (that region being better for fossils) or does it reflect turtles "spreading"?
There has been some conversation about this. Problem is that there's already four pictures in that section, makes for a tough formatting problem to crack.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I see looking back through the talk pages, you've been through the mill with people tugging this turtle in different directions. Hang in there, for a little more. ;) Right now, the image is distracting. People jump around pages to look at images and then glance back to the text, so if there's an image in the wrong section, it's actually worse than no image. Three options, from easiest to hardest:
1. Cut it out of the page.
2. Move it into the section up above, the evolution section, that section has a cool little para talking about the western and southern turtles getting it on after the ice age to little midland "halfbreeds". So with a little more work on the caption text, since it is of a midland (yeah!), I can tie the image into that paragraph. Is it supposed to be there now? That would make sense actually.
3, Alternatively, what would really be sweet would be that picture and then a corresponding one that is top down view of a carapace (new picture we don't have now), way up at the very beginning of description. Since a lot of the description stuff tends to be "top, then bottom" in terms of our paragraphs. Maybe there is some way with putting a heading break or something for the subspecies to keep the 4 other pics separated. Another option would be to move some of the evolution stuff up with taxonomy. Or you could move the 4 pictures down to another section. But seems like you've tried those sorts of things way too much, alreayd...
I like a combination of two and three. For a while now I've noticed that some of the 'evolutionary history' section could be put up in taxonome (which kind of needs an image). Maybe the plastron image could go there (although a little unrelated perhaps)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That would totally work. Just slap some figure caption on there like, "the distinctive belly of the midland subspecies resulted from hybridizing of southern and western subspecies". The good thing is that darned plastron is the right subspecies for the story...
A lot of them had one unit in abbreviated form and the other not. Also, sometimes one unit was rounded and the other decimal. Were giving me all kinds of hard times and not worth the page callouts. So I clipped them.
That's cool. Sorry for the rework. My preference is not to have them, since you get a lot of decimals. Think the article reads better with rounding 16.1 degrees to 16. Also not crazy about embedding little pieces of excel into a text document. But, it was just my preference, so feel free to revert.TCO (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Could we skinny that down? Seems like the font is bigger than the article font (not sure how to fix). Probably don't want to abbreviate the states, given a lot of non-US readers. But it just looks big for not that much info. TCO (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I will order them in heirarchy of life form (ie. reptile, then mammal) and within that smallest to largest. Just trying to make some of the lists easier to grasp for the reader. If there was some other rationale for the order, let me know.TCO (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Same content, but rewrote for readability. Was having a hard time with big blocks of text before. Moved seasonal stuff to seasonal. Arranged subspecies in our "order" and bulletized. We had omnivore repeated for every subspecies so I just made it a comment for all. Moved hunting behavior down and gave it a subheading (seems a subordinate thought, it's "how", versus before, which is "what"). Plus I know a heading that says "hunting" will be a little sexy for the general reader. TCO (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure that the adult southern eat mostly plants and juveniles animals? Seems like they would be better at hunting when bigger. Also, I think we can just either cite the percent animals or percent plants (no need for both). TCO (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Conceivably, juveniles need more protein and therefore eat more animals. Equally conceivably, small turtles would be better at chasing very small prey. Ucucha00:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Handbook of Turtles (Page 228): "A possible explanation for the reversal in food habits in the C. p. dorsalis might be that these turtles have a preference for animal matter, and while immature are able to satisfy their requirements with a variety of small forms. When the adult size is reached this same food can no longer be obtained in sufficient quantity to meet the normal requirements and the turtles turn to the most available food that can be secured in proper abundance."
Included: " This is perhaps due to the fact that the southern painted turtle naturally prefers animal material but, while young turtles are able to obtain it in sufficient quantities (by eating small larvae and such) the adults may not be able to, thus they seek out plant matter (the most abundant food matter).[40]" Feel free to sweep it with the copy-edit brush though. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
reproduction content question
Do you have content on
physical act of egg-laying by the female
There's some good info in the third paragraph of "reproduction"...beyond that I've found that 75% of mothers stay with the nest through the first night. Should I include that?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's add it, I'm doing that part right now, offline.
initial acts of the newborn after hatching (walk to water? Anything special in terms of first actions)?
Sixth paragraph is the area you're referring to. Ernst 2009 source also says hatchlings are dependent on egg yolk for nutrients (include?). Early activity is not studied all too much because most of the young tend to overwinter in the nest.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, same source (page 206) says hatchlings residing in the nest are "responsive to touch and symmetrically arranged in the cavity [of the nest presumably] with their heads directed upward." Include this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, figure I know the answers but just asking (eggs are untended?) Mom leaves the nest and goes her way? Mom does not recognize her hatchlings or train them in any way?
1. I'll add the extra info in the version that's in my sandbox.
2. (new question) "A positive correlation exists between female size, clutch size, and egg mass and width." Which variable is associated with which (4 are listed). Do the first two both make the second two go up?
Apologies, that sentence is unclear. Bigger females equates to bigger 1) clutches, 2) egg mass, and 3) egg width. I suppose it could just be said that bigger females produce bigger clutches and eggs(?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
3. (new question, to clarify) " the eastern produces 1-11 (mean 4.9), the midland 3-17 (mean 7.6), the southern 1-11 (mean 4.2), and the western 4-23 (11.9)." Is this clutch size?
4. (NQ) "food access (and thus growth) is a factor in the earlier maturation of males." What is the context for this? Trying to understand why being male means there is more food. Movement? Also, isn't it simply that males don't have to be as big to be mature (so less time to build bodyweight)? You have a different sentence that says females grow faster. Two sentences conflict, am leaving the female one and cutting this one, but please advise.TCO (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Another confusingly worded sentence. Females physically grow faster, but males reach sexual maturity sooner. The more males eat, the more they grow and thus, the faster they reach sexual maturity: which seems to be based on size (according to sources).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Rewrote section. Should be same content. I did move a few items that belonged elsewhere (population dynamics). Had a couple places (juvenile description) where I cut a redundancy. Basically just structured it a bit more to put like with like, added some more sections and paragraphs. Wording choice for readability.
NYM, please fix broken refs (not sure why not "taking"). Also, I tried to keep it all in order, but there was a lot of moving of sentences and parts of sentences, so please scan and make sure I didn't move an inline citation to wrong spot.
Scanned it once for grammar and it's beautifully written (had to make just a handful of small changes). Next I will check with sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Conservation section
Got this section in my sand castle for a rewrite. Looks pretty good actually. Will put questions, etc as they come up here. BTW, I have a bunch and not expecting us to know or research them all, but just want to list them FWIW. TCO (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Interaction section? NYM, I read back somewhere some pain in your voice about "human interaction" sections. Don't want to be making unreasonable work and not sure the context of that previous pain. And I'm not pushing some wikipolicy (could care less), but I think there are some general reader questions, that if we have the info or can get it easy, would just be useful for a general article. Something that resonates with readers in addition to all the condensed biology info (although we do have some good sex and violence within there). BTW, I am googling and finding a lot of this stuff on state fish and game sites, but want to throw this out to the more veteran turtlers:
A. Hunting: is it generally legal (realize it will be state-specific). Licence required or not? Also, how common is it that people do so? Is it an oddity or something pretty normal that Bubba would go do? Btw, what is it generally called (fishing, hunting, trapping, catching)? And what is the method normally employed (like physically how do people who want to eat one, go do catch one...for frogs for instance there are some specific techniques)? Also are the turtles often (or not) caught by mistake or bycatch by someone fishing or netting or whatever? If someone wants to hunt or eat turtle soup, are they likely to go after painted turtle, or are there other species that are more commonly desired for that purpose. And...what does it taste like (if different from other turtles)?
B. Indian stuff: Any special uses or reverance?
C. Pets: generally legal or illegal? And what about deliberate capture from the wild?
It's not illegal in the U.S., no laws protecting it. I've seen them sold in stores before (despite the fact that many die prematurely due to lack of proper maintenance). Canada is a different story; I'll look through the sources we already have on protection in Canada to see if it specifically says its illegal.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
D. Note for A-C, I'm kinda interested in the "general" turtle situation, but if painted turtles are specially protected, that would be interesting.
E. Spread: Just found a google ref that says that there are California populations, non-native, but now established, caused by human release.
F. State reptile (found several states where it is listed, and wikipedia has a list as well).
G. Sports teams, mascots?
(eta) Did a search by google and could not find any teams that are called the painted turtles. hoping there would be some. Will someone with more Google-fu, please try, also? ;) TCO (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
H. Cartoon characters, literature, films? (only interesting if it is specifically a painted turtle, Ninja Turtles are not I guess).
I. Whatever I forgot and is common in human interaction sections?
J. Anything else you know about it's human interactions?
I'm just going to go ahead and start building the content on the regular page. I can take it offline if desired or even stop, if you feel best. TCO (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I can cover hunting, pets, and Indians from what I found. Also found some places named painted turtle. Also four states as official reptile. I just googled. Would really love it if we could find some college or high school that uses the painted turtle as their team name. That's the one where I could really use your google-fu. Maybe there is someone on a sports project who would know (or know how to search it). If we come up empty, that's the facts, but I just gotta think there are some painted turtles playing pigskin on Friday nights or Saturday... TCO (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You are fast! Eh...I found something on the web which said, they were "roughly" equivalent to the freshwater turtles of the Americas (I guess meaning some exceptions). If we add that caveat are we cool? How would you describe that family in "words". How about "a family of freshwater turtles"? Will go with that for now. TCO (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "a family of freshwater turtles" is perfect. Bringing geography into the picture can be complicated because different sources (all reliable) say different things.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
lead section comments
Mostly same basic content, but rewrote to make language more accessible.
Cut the part about 1:1 male-female ratio (not an important detail and given it is an equality, not interesting). Added a little bit on human impact. Added basking which seems notable and cool. Added some on reproduciton and nesting, which is a lot of length in the article and kinda cool.
To keep it at four paragraphs and have those paras be strong thematically (thus enjoyable to read), rather than a succession of independent thoughts, moved some content in lead into a different order than the article sections. Taxonomy and range had a common thread so put them in para one. Hibernation and mating/nesting had a seasonal theme. I figured end with a bang, so I put the animals eating each other for the concluding paragraph.
I feel good about it, but of course, whatever you all thing best is cool with me. :)
P.s. FYI: I will be adding a more detail to taxonomy, regarding the turtles family (lead will not have stuff not in the article).
Looks good. I have a few grammar questions though:
"but four regionally-based subspecies; the eastern, midland, southern and western; evolved during and after the last Ice Age."--is this correct as far as semicolons and commas and such go?
yeah, you use semicolons when you have stuff that is "commaed within commas". In other words, a list of things within an appositive phrase. Bigger concern is if sentence is too long, but let's see what Mahleus or someone like that thinks. We could do parentheses also. Will change it to that for now.
"painted turtle is active only during the day, where it can often be seen basking for hours on logs sticking out of the water."--I think the word "where" should be changed to "when," but I can't be entirely sure.
You be right.
"Summer is the mating season, and afterwards, the female painted turtles lay eggs in onshore, dug-out nests."--this reads a bit awkwardly
OK. will change to semicolon. See what you think then.
Let's please not archive the recent threads for now, while still pretty busy. Once fever of activity dies down, we could archive it all. TCO (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've set it so a minimum of 5 threads are left even with no activity ever. So page will always contain at least 5 most recent threads. Archiving now only occurs when no activity to a thread for 28 days and more then 5 threads are available. Regards, SunCreator(talk)19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Will look into the publications. Don't know that I can include anything from the original website though as its about all turtles. Thanks for the source!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ernst emphasis
(Definitely don't want this to come across as asking for more work!) Glancing at the bibliography and citations, looks like we draw very heavilty from various editions of turtle handbooks of Ernst. Wondering if we could add a competitor (if there is one)? Even if the info is the same, for a bibliography it's relevant for the reader to know that there are a couple handbooks that tell the story. (Probably worth a quick glance at least to see if there are things that help the article also.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_readingTCO (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that a while ago. As mentioned above by SunCreator, Uwe Fritz is an expert as well [1]. I'll look for other sources by him and incorporate citations (perhaps many duplicates but hopefully some new stuff).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Drafted this (rough) sentence: "In 2003, David E. Starkey and coworkers classified C. p. dorsalis as a separate species: C. dorsalis. However, this is largely unrecognized because successful breeding between all four subspecies is documented wherever overlap in population occurs." <ref name=Fritz177>{{Harnvb|Fritz|2007|p=177}}</ref>
Good add on the bibliography and the new factoid on taxonomy. If you want to add duplicate refs fine, but not a priority. I advise using the common name for the subspecies in your draft sentences instead. I think the pattern we set is to mention the Latinate briefly, but then use common names throughout. Is too confusing to switch back and forth. For instance, I don't even know which one dorsalis is. TCO (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think if we turned the bibliography into a Further Reading section, and just cited one Ernst (probably 2009, but whatever you think is "best Ernst") it would look better and be more useful. Anyone wanting to follow every single reference, still has the inline citations and can see that different editions have different info and decide to Interlibrary Loan the different editions! But a general reader probably wants something that is somewhat prioritized. So just one recommended edition is easier on him.TCO (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
One Ernst! I don't think that would be best. They all (except the two "turtles of the U.S. and Canada") have different coauthors and different information.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
some references on genus name and etymology
(no action required) I think we're in decent shape in article, but just wanted to note on the talk page, this page and the references it cites. FYI.
1024 Parker, S.P. (Ed.), 1982, Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms, 1232 pp pgs., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY
2982 Ernst, C.H., 1971, Chrysemys picta, Catalog of American amphibians and reptiles, 345 pgs., Am. Soc. of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
10760 Mitchell, J. C., 1994, The Reptiles of Virginia, 352 pgs., Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC
11614 Crother, B.I., John J. Moriarty (Ed.), 2000, Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, Herpetological Circular, Num. 29, 82 pgs., Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
11624 Mitchell, J. C., 2001, Personal Communication, Expert review for GAP Analysis Project, Mitchell Ecological Research LLC
I started a paragraph on this. May have a little more coming in. Please add and improve. More sections of Human Interaction to follow...TCO (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The fables capitalize Painted Turtle. And Snapping Turtle and the like. It's not a mistake of capitalization , but because it is like a character in a story. A single one that represents all of them. I can put it in quotes, "Painted Turtle", to make this clear, that it's a name. May I try again? ;) TCO (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure. The reason I changed it to lower case was that is says the painted turtle in the rest of the article and so it looks inconsistent to change to capitalise the first letter. Regards, SunCreator(talk)21:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I will try again. Take a look after. It's a male character in the story. Seducing women and the like, that BAD turtle, he! ;) We use "its" everywhere else, except in mating section or the like where we distinguish male and female roles. ;) TCO (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI. I've been adding references, but not sure what style of fn we are supposed to be using. If there is some style we keep for consistency, just let me know. I've just been trying to get the info down. TCO (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've pretty much run off the rails of copyediting and turned into a blatant content creator. Umm...I was just splotting the info down. I did download a toobar for citations that goes up next to my help button on the edit window and can start using it (is that what you use)? TCO (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm basically "done" and would like to just kind of throw some new stuff in as I come to it, iteratively. I've been through the whole page (except the conservation section, which reads well anyhow...plus I'm kinda working on some new content anyhow that might eventually "mesh" with that content, so not worth wordsmithing it now).
I think article already had great content and pictures. Hopefully the rewrite was helpful to trim some needless words and also use wording that was more general reader friendly. I think those were your previous GA reviewers main issues more so than comma nitpicking. If you want to push it for a GA review or whatever, I support fully and will go to bat.
Also, I think it's an inherently interesting, maybe close to "core", topic in that it is the most familiar turtle in NA. So it's a good page for Wiki to have and was fun for me to work on.
Some thoughts on further improvements of the article (NOT things we have to do, just on my mind, since I was messing with this so long):
1. (probably not fixable without some time and money) Subspecies images. In a perfect world, like if we were doing an article in a textbook and getting paid for it, we ought to have photos illustrated the text descriptions. Instead of in-nature images, have top and bottom views of the turtles. One ought to be able to take the captions off the subspecies photos and just read the text and identify them.
2. (this is easy fixable) Map still doesn't match the text. Our text talks about isolated populations in the Southwest, but we have a blue tentacle sticking down so the populations are connected. Also text talks about midland south boundary within Alabama. Right now the yellow is too far north to match the text. It's distracting for the reader to read the text and then not have it match the picture. From all the reading I've done (other maps, AL state wildlife site, etc.) I would just lower the yellow until it is halfway through AL. And make some blue circles in the Southwest, not a tentacle. The other alternative is to change the text to match the map. But from all the reading I've done lately, I think your current text is correct. And yeah different maps have kinda different circles of SW blue. But I would just match one of those sources, since they all seem to agree on circles, not tentacles.
3. (this is very low priority, and would not hold the article up for anything). Kinda thinking a few more images could be nice. Maybe a roadkill image or a nest or an egg. Not another picture of a turtle on a log, but illustrating other parts of the article. I find some of this stuff on the web, but not sure I want to go through the whole permission getting thing, when we do have a lot of images already. (Also, a total nit, but I think the Loon picture is a little suboptimal as the turtle blends into the group and the coin is uncommon enough to be distracting to most Americans and Europeans.) Might be able to get a habitat image of a pond from commons (similar to what I saw on a state website) and move aquatic vegeation to hunting behaviour. No biggie.
4. Human interest section: I have some more stuff in my sandbox, working on. You can snoop if you want. Need to get refs and such before I dump on the article.
Sports teams, we just came up empty. I think we just don't mention that.
Didn't find much on books or songs or entertainment ("cultural"). There is one book called Painted Turtle, but reading it, it is about a female painter (artist) named Turtle. Not about the species.
States is in in there.
Native Americans is in there. FYI: I did find some interesting handiworks using turtle shells, but I couldn't tell what species, so left it out.
Will have something on businesses soon. Want to move the uni press down to that section, within article, rather than a redirect at top of page (seems too prominent at top). Camp can stay up top, since it is an actual wiki article.
Hunting I have a LOT of good info. Problem is it is all state by state. I will do some fair, sourced paragraph and finesse it a bit. Not going to go read 30 state Fish and Game pages. That said, you can find A LOT of good primary info in those pages. Not just on hunting regulations but on the animals themselves. Local surveys, county by county prevalence, wildlife management plans, etc. Really huge detail. Just letting you know if needed in future.
Pets. I've seen enough on the web to write something interesting about the different aspects. I think this is such a common usage that we really should address a little more. And I got some good details like the salmonella danger and all that. Need to make sure it is sourced and balanced and I'm not checking each state to see their pet laws. ;)
Food. I can do a sentence or two on that, kind of like they did on the racoon page, but trying to get good sources to match what I got from forums is tricky. Most of the stuff with eating turtles is really more around snappers or terrapins where they have named recipes after them. Lower pri than pets.
5. Not a killer need, but I think evolution ought to go up with taxonomy and that honking table needs to get smaller AND be in a bigger section. Maybe if we went to abbreviate the state names or cut the names of the geological epochs. Its just so honking big for so little info now.
6. There may still be a few misspellings or punctuation issues. I was doing much more wording compostiong than comma checking. We could take it offline and run through a spellchecker maybe. If you think it is not changing much any more...
Example of a creek appropriate for painted turtle populations
These are all valid concerns that need addressing. I bemoan the fact that I personally have a hard time pushing images through commons and making distribution maps. I have a source on consumption of painted turtles...can draft something up and leave it here or on your talk page. Pets is also a good aspect to include, as I understand it, they're sold in stores pretty freely (whether its ethical/legal I can't be sure). The table in evolution still bothers me too; I just can't think of a better way to include the information as of right now (if you think of something, let me know); I don't know what other section it could really go in (?). Hunting info would be great as well, state by state not necessary, just a few sentences/general survey of the information out there. For now, I can replace the dist. map with a picture of its habitat (I had one before, see right).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and my source breaks up consumption by subspecies, do you think this is necessary? Could I just combine all the specifics into general sentences?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Yeah, that picture is fine. You could put that in habitat. Then move the watergrass picture down to hunting behavior (change caption).
2. Yeah write something up on consumption. That's awesome that you have that sourced. I can't imagine that subspecies consumption matters much, but write whatever source says and then we can always edit it. Or maybe it is kind of relevant (like regional preferences or such.)
3. We need to keep the range map. Just tweak it so it matches the words in our article. Move the yellow down and show some blue circles. If you are worried about the sourcing, we just show ALL the sources against that one image. I can give you sources that say midlands go down to AL (like state fish and game surveying the wildland) and that say SW species are in isolated bubbles. AZ state has this too. Remember, this is already what the article says! We're drawing the range map based on all the sources available to us. And right now, it's just distracting for the reader to look at the map and it's different from what we assert in text.
If the map stays that I prefer to not have this picture (makes for too many images I think). Look for the map to be fixed (if I can figure out how) and consumption information to be done tomorrow. It's 12:23 p.m. where I live. :-( --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Range map, even flawed, is much more important than creek picture. Keep the map. We're doing well. GA reviewer ought to be appeased by now. TCO (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, map it is (look for it to be fixed though). The article, thanks to your tireless efforts, at least appears GA worthy. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Amazon has a bunch of references
FWIW, Amazon search shows a bunch of books on the PT. ILL at a uni would probably get any of them for free. (Not really pushing anything in particular, just wanted to note they are out there. Maybe just look at the list and see if any of them seem special...) TCO (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Draft of consumption info
There wasn't as much information as previously thought, but here's what I could compile:
"Painted turtle are reportedly eaten from time to time, although they are not considered to be of high value in this regard.[1][2][3] Even the largest subspecies, the western painted turtle, is seen as to small to be a desirable food source, especially when compared to other, larger turtles."[4]--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pets:
The southern painted turtle is often sent to pet shops.[3]
There is a lot on the web. I can cobble more together. It's a much more frequent "use" of the animal than is eating/hunting. TCO (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Great idea! Will execute. I was going to try to figure out how to get a copy of it, but that is a huge pain in the ass. Have to get a Commons license and all that. I'd probably never get around to it. P.s. I like how they discuss some of the description stuff and it helps make sense and all. TCO (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool! And maybe some the wording in the article can be replaced by wording used in the source. I can do this if you think it's necessary (?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. I think top stripe description in article is consistent with the video. I wouldn't get into the red markings on the underside of the carapace, since those seem to be on some of the other subspecies as well. Like look at the midland. Tell, you what, I will tweak the wording I had on the EL description and think that will make you happy. TCO (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I just meant should I reword some of the description section (based on your comment, that's what it sounded like you wanted me too)?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still just not understanding you. I think video is consistent with rest of the article. But make whatever edit you think is needed! TCO (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we are cool. The article says red or yellow top stripe. The video shows a turtle with a red strip and the narrator points it out. I don't think that will throw the reader for a loop. who knows, maybe some other southern painted turtles (like further east than MO) ARE yellow striped. I would just leave as is. I think you had a great call to put it in EL, I think it ties in with the article, I think reader will like it and have no issues. TCO (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
South Dakota fact sheet Just sharing FWIW. I think we already have all this info. There are a couple refs at the bottom. FYI, it seems like every state (often with fish and game or wildlife conservation department) has a little Wikipedia like article on the Painted Turtle. A lot of them have references, names of who wrote them (often a wildlife biologist, even giving phone number and email), and detailed reporting maps within the state. I really doubt we need that kind of detail and a lot is repetitive, but just letting you know for other turtles and the like. May be really good RSes for current turtle statuses or species where you are having a hard time getting information. TCO (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have also found many 'state-specific' sources, good for initial development of an article, minimally helpful at this stage (usually).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Slide it in if you want. I was a little on the fence since it seems some of the cultural stuff is general Indian-turtle, rather than painted turtle species specific. Like there are a lot of myths where Indians say the world is on the back of a turtle. But I don't know that they say which kind. TCO (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your right, didn't notice that it says 'Lakota name for turtle is "keya,"' thus its not talking about painted turtles. Will leave it out. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess you could find some Indians, like in British Columbia (they really love the painted turtle up there), where it is the only turtle in the geography (since it is the furthest north turtle blabla) and then if the Indians use it in totems or whatever, it would have to be the painted turtle. I don't have the energy to go research that.
Busy getting this hunting thing done. It probably needs pruning, although when it started I thought I would find nothing. You could probably do an article on "turtle catching in the US" or the like.
Suppose I could, that would be much later though (still so many turtles articles that need help). Your sandbox looks promising!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, could empty subsections be left out until content is added? It may not be an MoS thing, but I remember being advised to do this before.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
HA! The cafe was probably a reach. Yeah, figured someone might call me on that. ;) Was just trying to react to the comment that we were lacking on a human section. Too bad we don't have some college football team called the Painted Turtles. Like the TCU Horned Frogs, now heading to the Rose Bowl. TCO (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the new "Taking from the wild" section, two notes however: PCB is a disambig link, not sure which article article you wanted it to link to, and can consumption be merged into this subsection? Possibly in or around where this sentence is: "Painted turtles are not as actively trapped as snapping turtles for food."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, also, should the bit about dissection be moved up as well? The source seems to say wild specimens may sometimes be used (rather than captive bred ones). This would fall under 'taking from the wild,' but it's your call: I've tried to figure out where it could fit in that subsection and had some trouble.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Still need a pet paragraph. That is really a pretty common usage. Not just something people did in the olden days. We should reflect current sources. When we get that para, there is probably a pet sentence that will get morphed out of what we have now. I don't want to mess with it now, until we get that para written. TCO (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've heard about having these as pets by word of mouth, not too too much by sources though. I'm 110% positive there's adequate information out there however. I'll search with you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll work on the footnotes while you get the pets done. GIYF. (painted turtles for sale comes up on autocomplete!)TCO (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Try my sandbox, Amazon.com (then ILL), and the F&G pages. I think just basic googling should work as well. You can kinda tell waht is going on, and then find an RS to back up the picture you develop from the non-RSes. TCO (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Mm...some of the pet information in your sandbox reads like a 'how-to.' The source also appears to be of minimal help. I'll do a google search and see if there are any references specific to painted turtles and specific to keeping them as pets.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should not sound like a "how to". Just want to note the (common) practice, a bit better than 1952 Carr does. There are RSes discussing it. It's not as popular as the red-eared slider, but is pretty common...TCO (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
One outlying reference thing
Can the ones with naked URLs be reformatted so that the title of the page/article is what links? For instance, can current ref #3 and the like be made to look like current ref #72 and the like?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep. On my to do list. Were you happy with the refs I've been putting in lately? I've been using a toolbar thingie. Like the refs that I just made for Taking. Were they compliant?TCO (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that something from when the article was a stub? Cut? (Not anything special if you follow that link, and it sits on top of a section break...) TCO (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you care how I name new named refs? I've just been using short names that remind me of what the source is (like BC or VA FG). But is there something important to you (or to wikipolicy) where I ought to name them with last names of authors? I only ask cause it is a pain to change named refs back. MS Word is so much less clunky than wikipedia for endnotes...TCO (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I usually go by authors last name followed by the year published. If that can't be found, I go with organization abbreviation or something like that. Not sure if there is a wikipolicy on this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
layout
Like your last change, Metsfan. I think breaking the alternation "rule" when there is a reason for it is fine. And in general images on the right are easier (given ragged text boundary). Also avoids messing up the bullets. And for crayfish and the racoon, nice to see them right near each other for comparison (what is eaten by us, what eats us). and then they both face in. ;)TCO (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It might look better to have them in two columns so that it doesn't take up as much space, but I'm not sure how that would be done. —focus22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I was going to wait until after the text edits to give improvement suggestions on the map, but if you have the graphic artist hired:
Change the identifiers to the common names. Latin names smaller or in parentheses is OK if you want (similar to images). Yeah, it should be obvious the Southern one is in the South, etc., but it still ends up being a hassle to decode, especially when reading the text and going back and forth to the map (which is frequent, since the subspecies differences are often discussed in the article, not ust in range.)
Show the overlapping of the Midland into Eastern range (perhaps crosshashing).
Show the "scattered" Western range somehow (perhaps crosshashing) or just some isolated pockets.
This ref shows a different range (see Alabama especially, but also the Southwest and Northwest) and one that seems to make more sense intuitively. Maybe check and see which ref is more recent or more reliable?
The range of these turtles is the hardest thing to get right. Every source says something different...I suppose the thing to do is go with the most current one because their range is constantly getting smaller. The source used to generate the current image was the only one I found that broke it up by subspecies though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a (probably current) ref discussing them being common in Alabama, in contrast to the map. I would fill the map in a bit in a bit more in the Alabama, Missippi, Tennesse area. http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/what/Reptiles/Turtles/pt.cfm Also there was that other 1972 ref that showed a wider range too.
I think if you are using the 1952 ref it is dated and probably also wrong about the loss of range (later studies seem to show that the turtle has a larger range than shown in 1952, which suggests 52 was in error at the time. Possibly also in error about the range shrinking).
It's not big deal. But given there are different sources, let's just go with whatever you think is correct. We can adress the inconsistency of the sources in the text or a footnote. That's gonna happen...TCO (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that the range is expanding. Under conservation I have a sourced sentence that says its shrinking annually. Eep NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. I checked Ersnt and Lovich 2009 and they have the range including most of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. The range is definitely not expanding (except for released pets). These range maps are just generated (and generalized) from local databases (which just show where so and so happened to report one in 1978 etc and are not standardized in any way), published surveys (usually obscure), and museum collections. They are pretty fallible at fine scales. If it comes down to it, I wouldn't worry too much about the subspecies. They mix a lot and I read a recent paper that suggests that pure C.p.picta doesn't even exist. There are broad areas of overlap so no one can really draw an exact line anyway. It is kind of nice to have it presented visually, but don't wear yourself out about it. One other thing, I forgot to add in my edit description that I took out death by improper husbandry as a mortality source in the conservation section. This is just because captive mortality doesn't matter as far as conservation is concerned since the damage was done when the individuals were removed from the wild. After that they have nothing to do with the population.
Agreed on husbandry, makes sense. On the subspecies, I think we should keep some map that shows the different subspecies ranges. Our text discusses intergrades, so the reader knows that it's not black and white (or yellow and blue!). Also, pretty much all the other maps I've seen, plus the state FnG websites (some of which have pretty good recent local surveys), plus even our TEXT talk about the range coming down south into Alabama. I think just moving the yellow line down (out of Tennesse and into Alabama (doesn't matter exactly where, just part way down) would fix the problem. Right now, we are not even matching our own text, which bugs me most. But I think the map drawer guy will fix that. TCO (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Initial copyedit impressions
Sleeping Metsfan and rest of the "Painted turtle" creators: Very cool article! I'm stoked for your creation. Who wouldn't be interested in the most common US turtle and its migrations and basking and eating, getting eaten, having sex, etc. I like this little guy! Also article is in good shape in content and basic English. See the following to be improved:
1. Copy: Few random grammar and abbreviations. Some style work (can be Strunk and Whited to make tighter). Although pretty decent already.
2. Structure: High level structure is good and often the lower level structure is there also. That said, there are some paragraphs and whole sections, where the structure breaks down. For instance, we start talking about the carapace, then go to the skin, then back to the carapace, instead of like with like. There's also some paragraphs that are too long in blocks of text, especially given the difficulty of the material. However, usually the structure is good enough so that further divisions are obvious (like into different paras for each subspecies, when each already has two or more sentences).
3. Terminology: Which brings me to...the article is too technically worded. And there's really little reason it needs to be that way. "Bass" instead of Latin name thingie. Shell instead of carapace. Flat-bottomed instead of keelless. (Also, one section where the Latin names of the subspecies rise up and take over.) I'm a Ph.D. chemist, but I did a double take with a lot of the wording. Just hyperlinking is not sufficient, when there's no reason to be beating the reader over the head with "carapace", all article down. Both wikipolicy and common sense say that we should write for a general interest audience, not for a technical scientific audience, (and biologists are the worst, scratch that...doctors are the worst). There is no reason why the life of the turtle can't be conveyed in fascinating detail without using these $50 herpetological terms (or put them in the parentheses).
I have some comments about a few things that I feel need to be addressed. I'm a new and not very active editor, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes BUT I definitely see some problems. In the course of the copy editing a fair number of factual errors are creeping in. I also notice that in the attempts to reduce the use of technical terminology some of the text has become vague and confusing. I think there is a happy median that can be struck using links etc to define basic terminology. Further, I think it would be nice if novices reading this article could learn a few of the simple terms that are used to describe and discuss turtles in general rather than hiding it from them. I also perceive that the organization could be tightened up a bit and this problem may be getting a bit worse rather than better. For example, the conservation section seems to lack clarity, focus, and efficient use of language. Finally, there is the problem of references, specifically the use of Ersnt and Lovich. I think that it would be much better to simply have one citation for the Painted Turtle section of Ernst and Lovich 2009 (i.e. pages 184-211) rather than a separate citation for each page. Anyway, I appreciate everyone's hard work on this, especially NYMFan69-86 who has basically built this article. I just want to make sure that the quality continues to improve. I would like to make a few edits that I feel would help things out but it seems to be changing faster than I can get a handle on where things are going. Matt Keevil (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with using a few technical terms, especially if they are ones the reader may see on other parts of the web. The problem when I came to this article was that it was a HUGE vocabulary lesson, sometimes without justification. When I first came here, this thing was like being beaten over the head with terminology. The trend to just thinking a hyperlink is sufficient and then you can add term after term, is not a good way to go. Wiki guidance is to write for a general interested reader. I have a Ph.D. and this thing was turning me off. I would pitch it for the average, intelligent reader of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal or National Geographic, or someone who listens to National Public Radio. In other words, a non-specialist, but someone who wants to learn more. The shorthand that one would use in a field guide or in a turtle almanac like Ernst (writing for specialists) is not appropriate for a wider audience. And I think a huge amount of the content can be conveyed just as well without the language one would use in a submission to Journal of Herpetology.
My compromise would be to use some science terms once (plastron and carapace are things the reader might see on other webites), in parentheses, with a link, so the reader gets the benefit of that. We can add a hidden comment to prevent other editors from revising them out (into the hyperlink). I would avoid the pounding effect of new term after new term (when very good English equivalents exist) being repeated through the rest of the article, though. For things like saying spermatogenesis, instead of making sperm, or using the Latin name for bass, or for some snake, or mixing in Latin names of subspecies into the text, I see little excuse. ;) BTW, if we do add the term once, it ought to be on FIRST time used (for instance, when you added carapace and plastron, you did so within the subspecies, but there was a better place to add it earlier).
Anyway, I'm all stoked to really brush this thing up. But I need to get your signoff that you want me to take care of (2) and (3) before I dig in and spend the time on it. And I don't want to tug it in a different way from what you think it needs.
I think that's OK. Each sentence is not starting with "the", so it should not be stachato. And we want to have parallel strucure as much as possible for the benefit of the reader, to efficiently read. Plus "the turtle" is the star. :) TCO (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
more pictures
1. I know we have a lot of pictures, but am finding some good ones on the net. Any guidance/experience on requesting permission for them (worth the effort)?
2. A few pictures that would be nice to add to the article:
-nest picture
-eggs or clutch picture
-turtles copulating
-downward view of adult turtle shell (similar to what we have for the underbelly, not a "nature shot" but more a description one.
-more common coin or other comparator for hatchling (lot of Americans unaware of size of a Loon and I think Europeans even more so, I think it is a distractor to the hatchling itself).)
-I don't see the coin as a problem, but then I'm not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 06:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
That site's pretty good. I like flickr for images also, but I'm unsure how to get permission to use them (all for the inclusion of more).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! This picture is awesome, I like the egg picture, the second one I think we could do without because we have the road sign one. Thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1. I would try to avoid black on black images (why I don't like coin picture, can barely see the turtle). Still might be better than what we have, could ditch the coing picture and move the hatching picture down. So might still help!
2. I got some pushback from the permission gatekeeper at Commons on roadsign. I (honestly) felt like I did it perfect citing the license and all that and totally following their procedure. I rebutted the email. Will let you know how it turns out.
Thank you, I liked it too. It certainly does brighten up the page. Kind of collides with our bullet points but I think it's okay the way it is.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice stuff! Dragonfly big improvement over crayfish and egglaying big improvement over coin picture. Swimming turtle is fun, too. I prefer current roadsign pic as we need some variety from turtle images (and looks less staged).
Not that important but, FWIW, Creationwiki (I can't even type it without rolling my eyes) at http://creationwiki.org/Painted_turtle has a couple pictures under a creative commons license that might be usable (check out the source for the images, there are more there of lots of different things). CAUTION though, most of them are misidentified at the subspecies level. The nice picture that they are using in the taxobox (creatobox?) is an eastern though and is nicer than our current picture for that subspecies. Also, I submit this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PaintedTurtleInLillyPads.JPG as an alternate for the aquatic plant/habitat illustration. Matt Keevil (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE - a couple of those pictures are misidentified Pseudemys (Florida Cooter I think) not painted turtles. I noticed this before but forgot to mention it. But I remembered once I noticed SunCreator uploaded one of them to Flickr. It is a nice picture, someone should add it to the Florida Cooter article. Maybe I'll do that. Matt Keevil (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The first two. You can tell it's a Cooter and not a Painted because of the faint bars on the carapace, the slightly wrinkled texture on scutes (Trachemys also often have this), the lack of cusps on the top jaw, the fact that it is way bigger (hard to tell from a photo though), has a relatively small head, those dark circular blotches on the bridge (well underside of the marginals), and a more highly domed shell. As for what kind of cooter... well I'm a northern guy and don't have much experience with the cooters (seen a few in the wild though, incl. while snorkeling and I think they are awesome. However their taxonomy is very messed up (if you thought Chrysemys was bad...). I think that is a Florida Cooter which is either a species that includes the Penisula Cooter as a subspecies, or Peninsula Cooters are actually a separate species and Florida Cooters are a subspecies of River Cooters. Heh. They don't call 'em complexes for nothing. Anyway even after breaking the books out I'm not sure, and I don't trust anyone's picture on the web. Just noticed that Wikipedia title picture of the River Cooter is clearly a Yellow Belly Slider. If I had the turtle in hand to see its plastron and get a better look at its jaw and the striping pattern on top of its head maybe I could be a bit more certain.Matt Keevil (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Creationwiki? WTF? Could you enquire if the different subspecies of picta were put on the arc, or just one, or even perhaps a dorsalis and a regular picta. Could help resolve the Starkey-Ernst debate. :) TCO (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed all this (waaay up here). Have all incorrect 'pictas' been removed (I know that's already old, but I couldn't resist)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Diamondback terrapin looks like an intrinsically interesting turtle and notable. Might be cool to work on, after getting this one done and incorporate some of the learnings. I guess we will still get some from the FA/GA gatekeepers...TCO (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Too bad my students didn't stumble across the Terrapin. It is in our backyard and is protected - which means research is out there. Nope - instead we are doing a bat in africa that only has one ancient publication.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Terrapin is just a really cool one to do. You've got the soup, the sports team, and a very cool looking turtle, plus the environmental angle. It will just resonate with people...TCO (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
[[Snapping turtle] orAlligator snapping turtle would be cool to do. They are both pretty core and notable. The AST has some conservation issues. Snapping turtle people eat a lot and hunt a lot. both articles could really use some work too...TCO (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
picture in Human interaction section
I agree we need a picture in there! We are thinking on same lines. Kinda would like something a bit more interesting than just another picture of a turtle per se, though. What I really loved when I first came to this page was your picture of the raccoon. It illustrated something in the text, wasn't just a gimmick, but it was also a break from all the turtles.
I have a request in to a blog owner to get his picture of a turtle road crossing sign. Other possibilities might be a picture of a turtle trap. Or maybe a picture of a pet enclosure. But just something that is a little more "human" and less biological.
Like this. (Although the "rare turtle" kinda ruins it. But the picture I have from BC, was actually for protecting painted turtles)
I actually HATE the picture I just put in! I think the one here will do just fine until perhaps a better one can be found. :-} NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. If you haven't put it in yet, I will put this one in. It will actually fit with part of my plan for bulking up conservation. (Have more info on the dangers to turtles, mitigation plans, etc. And some of the mitigation, particularly out west is road related.)TCO (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI. This is one, I really like even more. It shows a turtle trap and really is skillful in that it is not just kind of a glitzy picture, but actually illustrates something strange to the reader (like who other than a herpetologist or some good ole boy knows what a turtle trap looks like). And since it is from F&G, it even fits in with some of the discussion of legal methods of taking and trap restrictions. Plus it is a line drawing so kind of a break from photographs. Only thing is I have to get permission for it, even though it is on a government site. Wisconsin DNR turtle trap drawing, scroll downTCO (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think these pictures would be awesome; maybe we could even use both in the 'human interaction' section. It's great that you have more info on conservation, if you need help constructing sentences, let me know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I think not all are, actually. Plus I think state may be more restrictive than federal. Also, they had a webpage specifically discussing asking for permission and all. So following that...TCO (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
might as well change the southern description to be a red line on top vice red and yellow. Seems to match this source, the video as well as our picture.
He lists some references to his article. Especially the field guide would be interesting. Not just for this article but maybe many. Maybe help alleviate some of the Ernst emphasis. (Of course I don't know if Ernst is a source for Conant or visa versa, or they are more primary or secondary themselves. But in any case, probably useful to look at Conant to see what it has.)
I don't get the how to concern. My comments were all related to description section. Your note, sparked thoughts...but on a tangent...a segue (see if that hyperlink worked)...TCO (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I glanced through the Conservation section of this (great) ref and, despite the article being specific to Oregon, it's wording suggests that it encompasses the whole species. Phrases such as "throughout its range," "painted turtles are known...," and "turtle populations" litter this source. I think it would be safe to apply some of the more general information found here to the entire species. It has a lot of good information. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I can watch out for what is Oregon specific versus general. Like you said the context helps. Also, can look at the titles of what papers they cite to see if local or not. TCO (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
racoon picture
I think the raccoon picture should go back. It was one of the most appealing images on the page. I don't get why Focus clipped it. Was it the white space because of the short section? If so, I bet there is some formatting answer, like perhaps putting it in a section higher up. If it was because it "violates alternation", then that is not a rule and there is no reason not to put more images over on the right, where they mess stuff up less. And we already discussed this on Talk.
If you really have to get rid of one image for alternation sake, ditch the green on green crayfish, that I came up with, and put the raccoon back. But I think they both can be there. TCO (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I liked that we had a raccoon picture, but maybe that wasn't the best one: it was kind of zoomed out. Perhaps a better one can be found on commons however, I wouldn't mind of the original were simply replaced.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the original better than a zoomed in one. We want to show it in action, foraging in it's habitat. That's the correct perspective for this article, rather than a detailed view of the creature itself (if someone wants that they can go to the hyperlinked article). If he does not come and comment in a little while, just put it back in. TCO (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to cause a debate over this; it just seemed like that image was a bit superficial and unnecessary—more of a 'filler' image. Most people know what raccoons look like, and they aren't discussed much in the prose, and IMO it makes the 'food chain' section look rather cluttered. If consensus is to the contrary, however, don't hesitate to put it back in. And no, I don't have anything against raccoons—they're one of my favorite animals :-). —focus19:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: I just took a look at the article history to see if I had some more reasoning, and I remember now that the image created a moderately large blank area which looks very strange. If you put the image back, I'd recommend figuring out a way to fix this. —focus19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Formatting has always been a big problem with this article. I'll throw the picture back in and see if I can't work around the issue. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. There's about a sentence more of urban raccoon concern from conservation, coming, so that gives a tiny bit more tie-in.
I'm a little burned out...
I have some decent stuff on conservation to add, to blow it up a little. Kind of a little tired, really and having a hard time getting to it. I've read enough to see that the story of the PT is not one of easy to describe range reduction (like the lion or tiger, or some rare or endangered turtle), but more one of decrease in numbers and even here, population surveys are really lacking, so the discussion from all sources, seems to be more about factors like habitat conversion which undoubtedly are and have changed the density of turtles versus what they were before the continent was settled and developed. TCO (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I know, hang in there, this is the last hurrah. I feel like there are three main things in the article that need help before I'm comfortable (perhaps...maybe...I don't know) submitting for FA, if of course the article gets passed at GA: the conservation section, a pets section (or paragraph), and the range map. Beyond this, I feel like the content, structure, and formatting are all of pretty good quality.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We are seeing it same.
blue circle and move yellow line down.
pet paragraph (don't think a seciton is needed, but if you want to fine) along with another para for not pet uses. we have a two para seciton overall on uses.
little more on conservation.
(oh and everyone can screw with it and look for a comma out of place as well.)
I started to redo the range map with more up-to-date information but realized I did not have enough information about the overlaps of the Southerns, Midlands, and Easterns. I would have been guessing where to put the boundaries. There doesn't appear to be a recent authority like the one I used for the first map that identifies the ranges of the four species. If you have one, I could start reworking the figure. It is a very difficult process because of the range irreglarities and overlapping ranges. Dger (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The 4-color map is one of the most important graphics in the article. We should not scrap it. Nor should we change it to all be one species (since so much of our and other sources discussions is in terms of the current 4 subspecies taxonomy). Yes, it's frustrating that different sources have slightly different or conflicting range information, so that one can't just copy one source, but we should just draw the best picture based on a gestalt of the information out there.
Don't worry about showing the "grey zone" boundaries of the subspecies. Our text discusses subspecies mixtures near boundaries. The reader will understand that.
Almost all the sources show in pictures, or discuss in words, "disjunct" populations in the Southwest. I.e. some blue circles in New Mexico, vice a single pseudopod snaking down. I would settle for even just a single circle created by "chopping" the pseudopod at about the NM-Colorado border. See this source for a picture after Ernst and Barbour:. If you could speckle a little a tiny circle or two of blue in northern Arizona, that would be extra credit, as discussed in text in the Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Department. I've looked through several sources and they all show that kind of big disconnected circle blob in southern New Mexico, verging into Mexico. The tiny blue circles, in Arizona differ a bit by source, but they basically all show some sort of speckles in Arizona, that are tiny. Let's not argue about which exact circle boundary, but at least get SOME circles in there as an improvement over the connected population, now shown.
The "hole" that we have in range in the central Southern US states (around Alabama) is too large. For one thing, it doesn't even match our article text. Our article talks about painted turtle range reaching into Alabama, but our map shows that state completely clear. The best, and current source (and one we use in the article) is the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Here is what it says "DISTRIBUTION: Locally abundant in Alabama, the painted turtle is one of the most widespread turtles in North America. The Eastern subspecies occurs in the Chattaahoochee drainage system in the east-central part of the state. The southern subspecies has the largest distribution in Alabama in the western half of the state from the Tennessee River system to Mobile Bay, while the midland subspecies occurs in the extreme northeast corner of the state." To fix the map, just "fill in" so that Alabama is more covered similar to Ernst and Barbour. I would draw the yellow down to the Alabama-Tennesee border (now it is well north, within Tennessee). Also draw the green at the bottom so it bulges out more to the east and covers most of Mississipi and Alabama. Leave the Gulf Coast of MS and AL clear though.
Not sure if your section was cut on purpose or by mistake: I think the structure of the bullets is helpful for the reader to weed stuff out of text. Every time he sees them, he knows what is coming. Also, much easier to really compare and contrast well, amongst the subspecies, in that format. I think the general "don't use bullets on wiki" is meant for people who overuse them, who write Powerpoint style and can not organize thoughts into paragraphs. That said, if you think it really scans better for the reader to eliminate them, get rid of them. You could also ask someone like Mahleus or Wehwalt or someone that has a real esthetic for text, what they think. And of course if you get some static about it at wikireview, then just change it. TCO (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think those areas of the text will read just as easy either way, I just didn't know if it was an MoS thing. We'll leave them. :-}--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Adding new conservation section in
I'm adding in an expanded section on Conservation. Lot of new content (same basic story, but more detail and more clear on what the level of danger is.) There are two images in it. Probably on the wrong side for alternation, but I think blank space will not be an issue. TCO (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to change the heirarchy so conservation is one section on its own (one level higher), and then the other section will be called human uses or uses or some-such. Don't edit for a minute or two please...TCO (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. It is in there.
I will work on the pet section next.
Looks a little picture-poor now, down at the bottom, but I'm hoping to get that Wisconsin turtle trap picture.
It looks good except for reference formatting. The second paragraph under pets has some problems. I removed this citation: <ref name="FDA loop">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/21cfr1240.62.htm Turtles intrastate and interstate requirements; FDA Regulation, Sec. 1240.62, page 678 part d1.</ref> from after this sentence: However, a loophole for scientific samples allows some small turtles to be sold. There was a notice saying a ref tag was missing or something, can't be sure myself. Other than that, formatting of #78 and #79 to look like the others. The content is wonderful as always. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Those FDA ones are bad references. Stole them from red eared slider. But turns out they go to a blog or some such. I will get a more RS source(s). Not just a format issue, but will fix that also. (Also a couple other state refs coming for In and Oregon prohibition...GACK! TCO (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
On conservation: Not sure whether the long list of single sections paragraphs in Loss factors is helpful or not. It does make it easy to scan and see what the factors are. but it is a lot of section break space and makes the whole section look long. If you want it collapsed, the way to do it is to combine: "7.2.4 Pet-keeping impact on the wild
7.2.5 Pollution
7.2.6 Outdoor recreation
7.2.7 Research
7.2.8 Other concerns". I would leave the first three as separate headings as they have some importance and length. REally your call or you can play with it also. Actually I will play with it too and see what I like. And yes, I still have 3 more darn refs to find for the pets and am avoiding. TCO (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We are stepping on each other. Let me crunch the two FDA references through a template. Also need to add a couple more state citations. Will put here when done. Not trying to take your fun. Just want to avoid lose work with edit conflicts. You can still fix or edit all you want after! TCO (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Apoligies, I only just read your message above. Don't let me hold you back (and you're not stealing my fun!). Drop a note when you have everything incorporated and we'll sort through things. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Question: was it the eastern or the southern that extended into Alabama? Our text says the eastern reaches the Appalachian mountains in the west.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It was actually southern (green) that needed to move right into the hole, not the red moving left, much. (could maybe move it a schosh, so it covers to Georgia/AL border.) I just felt it was so clearly better than what we had before, didn't have the heart to ask for one more bowl of gruel. TCO (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha...I just know the FA reviewers wouldn't be too pleased. I'm perfectly fine with it as is. The readers are smart: between the text and the map we have they can put the story together.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, apparently the risk of infection is high (guess I'll be careful if I see one walking around). The more citations the better when it comes to something like this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm looking at a ref now that is all about the deaths. None of it will make it into the article, just the cite. However, the Redeared slider article has a bit more text and probably should. I think our two sentences are enough, since PT is not anywhere near as common as RES as a pet. And I hope you are not in there as I'm editing and takes me forever to enter these refs... TCO (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm done in pet section, ref-inserting. Feel free to edit. Death ref did not make the article (was a journal article on sort ot epedemiology issues). Not really needed here.TCO (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, went through (small ce, some other small things), hope I didn't interfere. This tag <ref name=ernst203>{{Harnvb|Ernst|2009|p=26}}</ref> is a bit confusing: which page did you site, 203 or 26? Beyond that, refs look great.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I meant page 26. (read it) Maybe expand the anchored ref to be the whole book? Otherwise, I can just cite as separate. But I have a few from the early pages. ;)TCO (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Range map, nah. Almost more wrong than before. Need to pull the green to the right. Not drive the yellow to mobile. It only comes down to the AL-Tenn border. Then we say something on the text for how the green bows out. TCO (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed the text to reflect our map. We have really improved. Map down, pets down, conservation down. It's a good article on a fascinating topic. Not some road or synagogue or garage band from the 80s. But the number one turlte of North America!TCO (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
My fault gentlemen, I confused the midland with the southern. The map looks great, as do all the sections (thanks to you TCO). Pssst...where is the GA reviewer?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's request Mahleus sign us off? He has been watching the rewrite and content addition. I just looked at some species GA nominees and passes and think we cross that hurdle. TCO (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's proper to seek out a reviewer (asking for something like that is a pretty large favor). We'll see what happens within the next few days with our reviewer.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Elegant and encompassing, just what you want in a lead. I was thinking, down the line (or maybe now) should we enlarge the range map to look like the one in Loggerhead sea turtle? The enhanced size makes it easier to refer back to while reading. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
In general I'm a fan of bigger pictures, but I actually think that map is pretty easy to read at its current size, and the discussion of geography is mostly restricted to that section. I would put effort elsewhere.
If you wanted to go for "more map" (and I don't think this is needed, but could be done), I would love to get a map just of the Pacific Northwest, to use in the discussion of range restriction. I would have it in that section only and it would show the range in more detail and we could have arrows or shading or something to point out that Oregon was imperiled, coastal BC endangered, and inland BC of special concern, but that Washington is fine. You'd be able to see a little more geographic detail like Vancouver Island and the range on there (only on part of the island) as well as maybe the Portland city's location in Oregon (since we discuss that a fair amount and it is actualy pretty significant). It would be a very "functional illustration". If you look at the map here, it gives you a bit of the idea. TCO (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be interesting, could perhaps show the red-bellied slider as well and how their range overlaps despite their being a non-native species. That would be cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Recent Matt Keevil edits
I actually DID mean the "edges of the northwest range", NOT the north and west edges of the range. See article text and Gervais conservation report. The issue for the turtle is not all north (like all of Canada) and west (all US west states) parts of the range, but is within the northwest and only a few locations there (Oregon and BC) that are most peripheral.
Good catch on the mating season. But our article says it mates from spring TO fall. Not avoiding summer. Do you have a ref that says it doesn't mate in summer?
I clarified the lead to make it consistent with the article section (spring to fall mating), nesting time fixed. If this is still incorrect, then we need to fix BOTH the lead and the article text. Just changing something in the lead is not the way to go, since the text becomes inconsistent and also the text is what we source. No problem with fixing ANY wrong detail, but let's fix it both places. TCO (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ernst and Lovich 2009 say spring and fall, which would be typical of temperate turtles. I wouldn't rule out the odd summer mating (or courtship attempt by males) but it would be the exception rather than the rule.Matt Keevil (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Lead has been changed to a different (later) maturity range. What is the source for that and do we think it more correct than what we had before (sourced)? In any case, if we change the info, we should change the article text to reflect corrected maturity and add the new source.TCO (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with Ernst's numbers, the one in the body of the article right now. I'm curious about who changed it...was it you?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't apologize, you have references to support your numbers. When it comes to ranges, it's porbably best to include the min and max found across all the sources. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
TCO new photo-gathering update and request for info
FYI, I think we have GREAT photos already in the article. But as I navigate the web, I find some that I like even more. I have written and asked for a few (there are directions in WP for how to do this properly referring to the license and all). In my sandbox, have a list of what I've asked for and status of requests. Would expect some "yes", some "no" and some "no reply". I think we are in good shape, so if their is no reply, I will just drop it.
I did just get one "yes". So now, I need to figure out how to put the file on commons and all that. Both technically and procedurally. Do y'all know how to do that? If not, can you direct me to someone who participates in commons image stuff? I will also ask around to others as well. Just this is my first time...
I think that you can just click over to WMC and your wikipedia username works both places. There should be an option to upload and then it requests a some information about licensing etc that you just fill in/pick the most applicable option.Matt Keevil (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I just created a Commons account and am working through how to upload an image and send email proof of permission. It's not trivial now but maybe easy after the first time.TCO (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's in there and looks decent. The "rare turtle" was a concern on the other image. This is actually an image from BC, specifically related to saving painted turtles. FYI: I want to shave a little bit off the bottom of the image so it does not interfere with next section. Will ask Goodvac for help, if you all don't know how.TCO (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks really nice, I don't know how to trim pictures already loaded, you may have to crop it on your computer than re-upload. Don't go and do this though because I'm sure there's an easier way that I just don't know of.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a little to the caption and I think it looks fine. Still have the section break, but there is some text with it now, so looks like a more holistic wrap. I will leave it for now. That photog knew what he was doing with how he composed a shot.TCO (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I think right images are generally much easier on layout since you have the ragged text boundary there anyhow. Anyhow, before we finish, it may change a couple times more! I'm not going to sweat itTCO (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Want my Wisc. trap picture. Would be really nice, since that is something that would be hard to picture and so the picture really is helpful. Plus nice variety to have a line drawing along with all the photos. TCO (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, don't worry about the road sign picture any longer, it's great. That other one would also serve the article well. Finger's crossed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see my comment in the "Questions" heading. I notice that the new Dragonfly picture shows an adult. Painted Turtles would be eating the larvae so I think that is what should be in the picture. I have a good one that I can upload and then I will post the link. Since there is a picture of crayfish already as well, we could also consider including pictures of a couple of common foods like waterlilies, snails, and maybe a dead fish.Matt Keevil (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
YES PLEASE. Especially cause if we have more than one, I want to put it in a galler (like we did for the subspecies) which will stop it fighting with my innovative bullets! But please make the color POP. No black on black.
Great Matt Keevil! I don't know if a gallery is the way to go though, don't want to draw too much attention to the prey items.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragonfly_larva_on_lake_bottom_in_Algonquin_Provincial_Park_CROPPED.JPG there it is. The colours don't exactly pop though (one of the drawbacks of camouflage I guess). Also, just searched for egg pictures. I have pictures of eggs for a couple other species but not Painted Turtles :( I'll have to fix that next nesting season but it doesn't help us now. I do have a picture of a nesting female which is already up on commons. It's not the greatest, partly because she has a big number painted on her back (part of a study). There are a couple of others up too if you need some to fill space but they don't necessarily illustrate anything specific that we don't already have illustrated.Matt Keevil (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think putting the crayfish back would be better. Alternation is totally NOT a rule. Plus left images mess up my text way more. So crayfish points the right way. I didn't like the contrast in the picture but it's still better than the tan on tan nymph. And it has a very subtle (and true) remark about the southern turtle liking crayfish (sorta makes sense...so do the people down there.)TCO (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Arguing against myself (I can do that): The dragonfly larvae is something people would not know what it looks like, so get the benefit of an educational illustration more.TCO (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
With the crayfish picture on the right that would make four images in a row on that side (it was like that before and looked wierd). I see no reason to mess with it; dragonfly larvae are a predominant prey item, image looks fine to me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the subheading 'capture' be moved up to the heading 'conservation,' just seems like it belongs there rather than 'uses.'--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I prefer under Uses, since it follows on from pet-keeping and "eating" and since the FG departments are regulating capture in a manner with an aim for responsible management (same as deer hunting and the like). We cover over-capture separately within Conservation already. Plus we ARE going to get the turtle trap picture and that will make it even more utilitarian feeling. But of course I put it that way to start. Anyhow, that was my reasoning.TCO (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate all the work that has gone into trying to get images for this article and I think that they really do add both style, interest, and information, BUT I have one issue (well I probably have a lot of issues...but anyway): I would be strongly opposed to including pictures of turtle traps. Here is why: 1) Painted Turtles are not widely exploited for food (even relative to other turtle species) and never have been so it is not of particular import to this species (i.e. unlike say Diamond Back Terrapins which were heavily exploited for food markets in the past until their populations collapsed). 2) Turtles in general are one of the most endangered groups of animals on the planet and much of this is because of exploitation. Their life history makes them extremely vulnerable to excessive mortality. Painted Turtles happen to be one the species that is still relatively widespread and common in many areas but they are still potentially vulnerable and are probably still declining. Given that, I don't feel that it is appropriate to dwell on or showcase turtle hunting/trapping technologies in the absence of compelling import of that subject matter.Matt Keevil (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It may all be totally moot since we don't get permission for the trap picture! That said, there is a lot of trapping for the pet trade. (We mention that it is not eaten much). And we have a discouraging comment from the PA boating commission, that is anti-taking. Might be balance to have the other view. I'm on the side of our little guy, but further south here in the US, it seems to be accepted to catch them. Image is from a fish and game department and I think is really educational in that I had no idea what one might look like (it's actually conveying understanding of something hard to picture).
Importance scale
FYI: I asked your project to upgrade the importance of the topic. It really does not feel to me like a trivial topic given all the stuff on the web on it, huge range, long section of Ernst, examples on their scale, etc.TCO (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
How did you get the number of pageviews? that would be cool to compare and contrast to other pages. I bet Snapping turtle gets more. But would think we would be OK. Better than some obscure frog or Mauritian grave bat or the like. TCO (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
[3] Go to 'view history' than 'page view statistics' and it shows it. It would be interesting to compare, I know my other turtles only pull in like less than one hundred a day.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not much good looking at December 2010 figures because many of the views are coming from current activity of editing/reviewing/updating the articles. Regards, SunCreator(talk)16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
COOL! This article pulls in triple the traffic of snapping turtle (which you would expect to get a lot from just how menacing it is and all)! I did a few popular ones: We are a seventh of alligator. Sure, that means alli is better than us, but that still puts us in pretty darned good company if you think how basically notable and just interesting an alligator is. We're definitly better than some obscure species. I mean heck, official state reptile of 4 states! TCO (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm on a tangent now. But I plugged in an article that I wrote that is start class: Amanar. Check out November and December stats. you see 0-2 in early November (I think this was before I made the article). Then a huge pulse to 55 and then 78 users, when I moved the content from sandbox into article space. Then it died down in December to 15-20 per day. What do you bet those are text harvesting services on the days where it was 55 and 78? Those sites that just have a bunch of ads grab any new content, so they must have been happy to see some from me. But after a coupla days, the bots die down. TCO (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Diamondback terrapin is higher than terrapin and both have a big spike on one day. I think they get a lot of traffic because of the MD sports team. Another comparison: Alligator snapping turtle gets more than snapping turtle. TCO (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added the etymology for the subspecies Latinate. Before we just had it for the species and genus. Makes a small paragraph which I put at the end (don't want to slow reader from reading the taxonomy itself). Think this will be topical and interesting for a general reader. No content changes on the actual taxonomy itself.TCO (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say keep it in one place in main article text, in same paragraph. Lead already gives both the common name as well as the Latinate. I think explaining the etymology not needed on top of that, for lead. Also, am not a fan of those super-long first sentences with foreign characters and all. They are a hurdle for the general reader to penetrate, and have been a bit mocked and discouraged by the stylists.TCO (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I might be persuaded the other way if there was something "neat"er about the derivation, but "picta" just means "painted" anyway. Even within tax, I put it at the end.TCO (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with it either way, it's just that other editors may think, since the information is readily available, it may be something good to establish early in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Overwintering freeze protection
I've added a bit from Packard et al on special adaptions for freeze protection. When I read this, just thought it was intrisically "cool" for a general reader. Also, it explains the turtle's spectacular northward range.TCO (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I adjusted the text a little bit to improve accuracy on the following points - The European Pond Turtle actually ranges farther north (albeit on a different continent). Also, a couple other species also have some degree of nest overwintering and super cooling ability (but have not been as well studied) including Northern Map Turtles and possibly Blanding's Turtles. Finally, I put 'often' overwinter because even in the coldest part of their range some Painted Turtle nests have emergence in late/summer fall. Interestingly, Snappers don't successfully overwinter in the nest but range almost as far north (except in BC where they don't occur).Matt Keevil (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
(Just chitchatting on the science) I read that snappers don't bask either. Is this a characteristic of being "bigger"? Less surface to volume ratio and easier to keep core temperature up?TCO (talk)
That's a good hypothesis but I would look at it the other way - being bigger makes it more difficult for them to heat up, so they would have to bask longer. The main benefit of basking is to increase metabolic efficiency (so faster digestion etc) but if it takes too long to heat up then it would tip the efficiency gain into the negative because they can't do anything else like feed or find mates while basking. The problem with that hypothesis is that small juv. snappers don't bask much either. Another reason might be that basking kills algae and snappers may be relying on algae for camouflage (they usually have a lot in the wild) which may be more important to them as they do a lot of ambush feeding. They do actually bask a fair amount but usually by entering shallow water or floating at the surface so it isn't as obvious. In the very northern part of their range they also bask out of the water esp. as the females eggs are developing before nesting (but not as often as Painted Turtles) and I have observed several injured individuals basking.Matt Keevil (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I love biology. The above reasons are why reptiles (exotherms of course) don't get very big: I believe the largest is the Komodo dragon. Keeping the entire volume of the organism warm is not easily facilitated by the smaller relative surface area. Thus larger turtles tend to be found further north while smaller ones further south, I suppose the Painted turtle is unique in this regard.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The largest freshwater turtles (Giant Asian Softshells, Nile Softshells, and Giant River Turtles etc) are mostly tropical (except Alligator Snappers which can rarely be over 80kg and hit the southern tip of Illinois). Some of the smaller turtles (Stinkpots, Spotted Turtles, Bog Turtles) extend fairly far north. Turtle diversity is greatest in tropical and warm temperate areas so there tends to be more big and small turtles there. The largest tortoises are also tropical. However as far as reptiles go the two largest are Leatherback Turtles and Saltwater Crocs. Leatherbacks Commonly forage around Nova Scotia and as far north as Newfoundland which makes them one of (if not the) most northerly ranging turtles (although that population winters in the Caribbean). Anyway, Leatherbacks are partly endothermic which is one of the many cool things about them so they might not be in the same category. One of the reasons that they can maintain high body temps in cold water is their low surface area to volume ratio. So it is harder to heat up, but also harder to cool down and therefore temperature maintenance is easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess being a mammal, I automatically think about things with a bias in that direction! (We have a lot more heat generation.) On the reptiles, I guess that would also explain alligators and crocs being south and also maybe even the dinosaurs being during a time of warmness.TCO (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Anoxia adaption
I added a few sentences in hibernation to explain how the turtle survives hibernation without oxygen. I realize is not only species that survives this way, but it still seems very cool and about 20 papers have been written on it (maybe it is a convenient lab specimen, also maybe an extreme example of long anoxic hibernation). Not quite as cool as the freezing, but still I though worthy. Please check refs and fix any science mistakes!TCO (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Citations look good: does current ref #46 need a 'date retrieved?' Content is great, doesn't say too much or too little and incorporates another field of research done on this animal. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello all involved! This has been a fun project. We really did a good deed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and the readers. There's been some talk of a potential push for FA; I'm comfortable doing it basically now or in a few days to a week. The content and writing style are both great. I'm fine with the current map but I put in a request anyway for it to be converted to the normal wiki-style map. I don't have any other real concerns, I feel the article meets the criteria. Any concerns from anyone else?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked at some articles that are FA (to try to understand what Wiki expects) and think we compare favorably. I really thought it was pretty good to start with and we have certainly sweated to make it better.
Definitely think it is a "core" topic, so kudos for going after it. The core stuff is more important to the Enc. but also harder than doing something obscure.
On the map, urge you NOT to lose the subspecies information (to look "official green"). Looking official is great, but there needs to be some mechanism to show the four subspecies. Is what makes the thing special and is very "functional". Also, given the thing covers a vast spread of North America, I don't think a cutaway is needed (as with Bog turtle, which was just in East Coast. Just a minor style thing and no biggie to me...just giving you my "money".
Yes, hoped to generate a lot of 'money' with this post. I agree, I urged the map makers to keep the subspecies information, just to convert it to the other style and show slight overlapping where appropriate. I made sure of that. Thanks for the reply!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest taking a little breathing space before an assault on FAC, which is quite a step up from GA; it's almost always a mistake to go straight from GAN to FAC. You'll be amazed at the level of scrutiny the article will be subjected at FAC, everything from the format of citations to that elusive "professional quality" prose. On that latter topic I think the article does still need some work. On a very quick look through, for instance, I found this: "... with older females nesting further on land". What the heck does that mean? Should it be "inland" rather than "on land". Also this: "7–10 days after emerging from the nest ..."; sentences ought not to start with numbers. Small though these things are, they can sink an FAC. If the article is now stable, with no more significant material to be added, then I think a week or so carefully going through it again looking for the kind of things I mentioned would be time well spent. MalleusFatuorum22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, things like this were the reason for my post. Many sentences, paragraphs, and whole sections were jumbled around: makes for various formatting and grammar issues. Going into an FAC with a full head of steam as I understand isn't advisable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I recognised your username but couldn't remember where from. Well you know what the score is at FAC then, so the students are in good hands. MalleusFatuorum22:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Valid crits, Malleus. We will fix. I actually almost know enough to know what I don't know (I'm not a professional writer, though). That said, I think the thing is pretty decent, especially having just surveyed some other FAs. Think we have some "pop". Keep us honest and kick our ass though to help us! ;) TCO (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Don't want to say it's an addiction but editing at 3 o'clock in the morning isn't an uncommon daily activity for me. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well done on getting GA! I'm with Malleus in take a short timeout to tune it up before FAC. Someone has a final this week, so effort that way seems more important then an article that can wait. A few comments about the article FA wise.
I find the map a bit difficult. It's colours are bright on the eyes, overly bright for an encyclopedia article and they don't have to be bright - brightness here has no meaning, so making them a bit more natural would be welcome.
A related map question in the back of my mind is why is there no overlap of the subspecies, are they divided by some natural barrier or do they overlap in area but the map doesn't show it?
Checking over with peer review is a good idea, even if to discount it's automated reasoning. For some reason it picks up a lot of things on this article. The lead seems fine, although it maybe correct about the TOC being long; I never seen it say that about an article before. The stuff about the numbers being spelled out and spaces are all to do with {{convert}} not currently being used I imagine. I can't find the word don't in the article but it maybe be there or something similar.
Dorsal is a disambiguation that requires changing. Some more wiki-links required. I notices 'Washington' is linked on the second occurrence. Chrysemys can't be w-linked in the article so that link should be removed.
Fossils gives approximate years BP. Is it correct to use BP when the time scale is millions of years? I doubt that it is.
The note in the final reference, 1994 Vermont state resolution, seems a little informal.
Note 4, Canada has no official reptiles - I think this requires a reference.
The Species and subspecies synonymy in the taxobox is awkward, see Loggerhead sea turtle for an alternative.
About the Years BP, I'm not sure. Articles like Barstovian use the numbers to explain what the term means, so that's what I used. There may be (probably is) a more proper way to do this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI. I am going through it from front to back, to try to fix all the wikilinks. Several need fixing. will post here when done. already snagged dorsal.TCO (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
On the BP and all that, I agree, it is overkill to worry about BP on that time scale and I still think that chart is way to big for the usefullness of it. Giving both the years and the geologic epochs, etc. when it is such a minor part of the article. It's in my sandbox on my list of sand under carapace issues. Maybe skinny the states down to abbreviations and hyperlink. Or scrap entirely. But make it smaller!TCO (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we can take it out, just thought it would help the reader understand what those words meant (but hey, that's what wlinks are for).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If you decide to stick all the converts back in there (which I hate, it is a piece of Excel in a text document, would not do that for a journal paper or anything else) than at least make sure every one of them is correct. Before there was huge variance in whether we used rounded numbers (better) or dashes (better) or abbreviations (better), and in any case they were different all over the place. Need to be consistent.TCO (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Fossil table is still kind of an eyesore. Don't like all the geo-epochs instead of years (it's even less info and WAY inconvenient to look at that chart and have to check every subheading for what years it covers. I would vote fore one of two options.
A. Kill it entirely. (text covers it).
B. Leave it. It does show the "graduality" of fossils being found further around. So that is nice. BUT:
scrap the geo-epochs They are not even cool ones like Jurrasic or something. Use years only.
Doesn't matter if you call the years BC or BP. But better yet, just say "age" (at that length scale, 2000 years is not resolveable). And why make the person look up BP when it is irrelavent at that time scale.
Use postal abbrevations for the places. If you get any FA static, I think you can validly say that it is within a chart, not text.
Also, consider wikilinking abbreviated states (and NB). The commas will take care of not making them merge.
It's obvious to the reader the states are in alpha order! Just say Location
I really think the current text covers it. When I first saw that chart, it did not expain the "so what", the story. So I added the text that explains the trend. (This was also an issue of the GA reviewer). I really think it is covered. DON'T write a list of all the states. If you want to keep the table, because of the work put into it, the only real benefit is that it shows the gradual "blossoming" of more and more fossils further from the middle of the continent and sort of "proves" the paragraph. But if you want to keep it, skinny it down, add years, not geo, abbrev places, etc.TCO (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
86 it. I'm sure the reader get's the idea from the text, but perhaps some sentence noting the general trend of more and more fossils (as you say) can be included.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe I fixed the taxobox issue (with the synonyms) however, I am unsure why/how the words "Species synonymy" and "Subspecies synonymy" are formatted to be the way they look (two different lines).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sun is right about the map colors. I think something more muted and "Apple cool" would be more professional. I had a good site that I used to change all my PPT presentations to get away from garish Windows choices. Anyhow, I'm sure the graphic designer here will take care of us. I really wouldn't sweat the areas of overlap though, as we handle it in text and deciding on where an overlap ends is even trickier than citing a boundary. I've been reading up and in some cases there is sort of a gradual change, in others there may be individuals looking strongly like the different subspecies but found together. Just read a science paper on them studying it in detail in Vermont.TCO (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been doing a pretty laborious go through of the links, but am only halfway through. I want to follow the MOS guidance on linking:
Don't overlink (not common geographic terms, not concepts not important to the context of an article). This is a more common problem on articles, but I fixed a lot of that when I did the big ce/rewrite.
Don't underlink (uncommon words or ideas or nouns, concepts important to the context of the article).
Don't link two words next to each other.
Make sure the links go to the right place.
You are right, Louisiana does not need to be linked. (and I passed it, sorry, bad me!). I had a bias to doing Oregon and BC, since they are regions where the turtle is endangered, but probably we should cut all the states and provinces. I think places of some especial significance, but less familiarity (Vancouver Island, Tennessee River but NOT Mississipi River) should keep a link.
Let me get through the rest of the article. I am following a process. I check all the concepts that need a link have one, check that all that have one, need it. Then I check where they go to (is it the best page). Give me a day or two and then run through and critique it. I'm sure you'll find some I miss or there will be sort of judgment calls we can discuss and change. It will frazzle my brain to get into that though, when there are lots of more obvious ones that need fixing first. Cool? TCO (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If you ever end up writing real papers for a journal or an academic thesis, then you check the exact rules. Usually you use a period with all sentence frags on figures. But not at wiki. Period with sentence. If a frag only, no period. TCO (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've read some of Valenzuela's work but I wasn't aware she did much with Painted Turtles. Anyway, turtles are used in some general lab research but it is usually Trachemys (sliders) not Painted Turtles. Obviously scientists that study turtles specifically will study them in labs sometimes. Maybe they are starting to become more of a model organism but frankly, I hope not given the conservation/sustainability track record of the biological supply companies (or the pet trade which is even worse and which might also be a source of specimens). Anyway, I don't think that it would be prevalent enough at the present time to be noteworthy. This article is in a journal that specializes in presenting new protocols rather than established ones. I can't get access, my institution doesn't subscribe, so I can't read the article (and is probably not the sort of source that wikipedia likes anyway, not that I am a stickler for that rule).Matt Keevil (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Good source TCO. Maybe we could just include the bit about them being an "ideal" organism for vertebrate zoology. The journal doesn't appear to say much on how often it is used. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see it that way. It is an abstract, written by one person, in a somewhat obscure journal, which appears to make an argument for doing something (using Painted Turtles as a model). It is not a wikipedia recommended type of source (as I hinted at before I consider this a strike against rather than a total deal breaker), but it is also not very accessible (can either of you actually read the article? I can't), and it is not important. As far as I can tell, what you have is one researcher making a suggestion. There are many more animal models of much greater significance in physiology research (Mice, rats, guinea pigs, goldfish, zebra fish, Xenopus frogs, Axolotls, dogs, cats, ferrets, fruit flies, Cenorhabditis nematodes, Sliders, Planaria flat worms, Rhesus monkeys, and Leopard Frogs just off the top of my head). I would hate for this article to start to sound like a sham wow commercial touting all sorts of uses for painted turtles around the home and laboratory.Matt Keevil (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we are fine. Can roll with Matt on this one. The primary place it has been used for comparative biology is as a spectacular (not sure if most spectacular, but long and easy to work with) specimen of anoxia. But we already cover that in anoxia. I've been straining a bit to find the "interaction with humans" as I felt the story was strong on biology, but there must be more to it than that. But I think we have enough. I agree with Matt. It's a grant proposal, not a cover of Nature or Science! TCO (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your consideration of my points. If you are interested there is a reprint of the article on Valenzuela's website (still haven't changed my mind though.) I do agree that the anoxia stuff is interesting and an important feature of this species but I also agree that it is best dealt with as it is currently, in the anoxia/hibernation setting. I will be doing a few edits on that when I get the time to examine the refs as there are a few factual clarifications that I think should be made.Matt Keevil (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Go for it. Want to keep the "pop" and just kinda threw something up, but if I have more mistakes (like there being a European species further north or the like), then just fix it!TCO (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
MOS has a nice section talking about how bullets are useful for short paras that are listish and daughters of something else (our subspecies info). See here. This is the way I would write something in the "real world", but anyhow, here is the MOS guidance too. No real point to this, but thought I would share as I just came across it and we do use bulleted small paragraphs.TCO (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
They use the bolding for each building as well (the reason is they are little "sections").09:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Look at how they use them for those NYC buildings in the example. After you win some NYM championships, you can go Flat Iron visiting. Seriosuly, love their example in the MOS. Just want to leave in your brain, who knows when a trick might help you in the future...TCO (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm putting the bold back. This is how MOS advises and also what I'm used to in writing. They are "faux" section breaks that don't use up a line. Good style. Give 'em a day or two to grow on you. And don't think I'm disobeying Wikiness, this is approved.TCO (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We mention dissection for a sentence under usage, but I would imagine RES is used more frequently and this cover would indicate also. Carapace and ears looked RES to me, but just wanted to check with Matt. TCO (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Tony corresponded with me. Sent a pdf of his study on commercial harvest in Minnesota. Sent basking trap picture and permission.TCO (|talk]]) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is interesting but I wouldn't rely on it too heavily. It doesn't explain the issues very well and some of the stuff that the trappers say (like "unlike fish the turtles are self sustaining") are, to put it bluntly, wrong. Exploitation of turtles is much less sustainable than fish at a given harvest level for simple reasons of basic biology. There are much better sources for information on this topic. Whit Gibbons et al. have a report or two out and when I have time I will find them.Matt Keevil (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not on the side of the trappers. I just think we should report on it. It's a story in the most popular paper. Obviously commercial harvest does still occur, but is declining, because of the growing trend to protect turtles. The Gamble paper also talks aboout the concerns wrt long-living and slow maturing (although this is less an issue for picta than snappers or the like). I'd like to get a sentence or two, plus the trap picture up. Probably shorten the laundery list of states with small limits that I had before.
I think there is a way to show this stuff, with still being balanced and fair, and I doublt it will promote trapping (but don't believe in hiding something on Wikipedia even if it is "evil".) I also think it's important that the article show all aspects of the animal (it is not purely a biological report) and aspects of human interaction and especially controversy are inherently interesting. Anyhow, let me get my thoughts together and you can rip into it and make it better. Plus, I did write up all that conservation stuff! I actually fell asleep in the bathtub reading one of Gamble's papers (printed out, thank God).
Anyhow...here is the Gamble trap pic. I think there is a way to show it that is tasteful, non-promotional and at least appears fair. Plus it's cool to have something that is a pic that is not just another turtle on a log (those are cute, but reader gets tired after a while...and a trap pitcure is actually pretty "illustrative" as the average civilian has no clue what turtle traps look like. (Would even prefer just a diagram of the trap, but this was the best I've gotten so far). Plus this is even a trap specifically designed for painted turtles (not a snapper and softshell trap).
It is a nice picture, but still looks like turtles basking on a log, ha ha. I'm all for balancing the article but I do advocate for more of a biological focus on articles about wildlife. Anyway, my issue with the press article is that it doesn't actually communicate very much in the way of accurate or relevant information. It's not terrible but it basically consists of only a couple pieces of information: 1) Conservation group suggest that turtle trapping is unsustainable and lobbies state government (but doesn't explain much about why it is unlikely to be sustainable). 2) Trappers that are making money off the turtle harvest say 'hey, there's no problem here'. 3) Turtle trapping is increasing due to Asian demand. 4) Some other states are moving to implement modest restrictions. It is just kinda thin gruel and I think we could do better with a more reliable and comprehensive source. We may end up wanting to use the article for a few things but I wouldn't use it as a major source. Matt Keevil (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked more into that news article and agree with you on the gruel. I also read a bunch of pdfs about the Center for Biodiversitie's lobbying of Iowa and other states. Their main concern seems to be on the overcollection of snappers and softshells. (Painted turtles are also unrestricted, but all the lobbyist stuff was related to the meat trade of snappers and the like.) I'm kind of leaning more and more to writing an article on turtle trapping, and that would fit better there. But it would be cheating a bit to fit it into the picta story. (Gamble on the other hand... was a picta "guy".)
P.s. Is this the seminal paper on populaiton depression because of the high maturity age? Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408. (Seen it referred to a lot and figured this was what you were referring to elsewhere...although Whit Gibbon is not an author.)
That Congdon paper is widely cited. That study site in Michigan has had a long term project (recently ended I think) that focuses on three species of turtles, Snappers, Blandings, and Painteds. There is another one on Blandings population parameters and that is also widely cited. Unfortunately Congdon has never published similar data for the Painteds but there are other studies cited in Gambles papers and the 2004 Gibbons paper below. There are other long term studies that are important as well for snappers but fewer on Painted Turtles, probably because Snapping Turtles and Softshells have been exploited more historically and concerns of pet trade collecting and collecting for Asian markets is relative new. The document that I was thinking of is a government report Reed and Gibbons 2004 Conservation status of live U.S. nonmarine turtles in domestic and international trade available here http://www.graptemys.com/news.htm/. Another paper - Gibbons et al. The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience August 2000, Vol. 50, No. 8, Pages 653–666 is much more general, both taxonomically and geographically but is useful for general information and perspective. http://stonelab.osu.edu/_media/stonelab/courses/51/gibbons-declining.pdf links to a (crummy) pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
All good points, (Including the haha. You have a good diagram picture? would love the look of a "line diagram" to give something different from photography.) Anyhow...I will put a draft together and request comments before dropping in. My intention would be to keep overall length same, but cut some of the "state by state" minutia sentences (which were my fault anhow), and add the issue of commecial harvest (and it being controversial and states moving to ban it). REference Gamble's papers. (which shows depression of numbers from large scale trapping) Etc. TCO (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you're still with us TCO. That's an interesting picture...throw it in. I don't know how much coverage (commercial) trapping should get, but I know if we leave it out completely, the FAC reviewers will push for it's inclusion because it'll be an aspect of this turtle we haven't covered.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Mapping
I know it is like a cherry on the 4 scoop sundae, but I wanna get that blow-up for the PNW showing endangered populations, non-endangerd, a little of the special geography (Vancouver Island, Portland), etc. How do I go make that happen? If I go ask the mapmakers, will I kind of be using up your manna NYM? Should I go do it on my own? I know it's not "needed". Just feel like it is what a "slick" magazine would do or the like. Advice? TCO (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The map has been the hardest thing so far. If you can make one...PLEASE by all means do!!! If you want to drop a note on the map workers page feel free. Also, I noticed on that same page you commented about the yellow section being moved down: didn't you mean the green section moved right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I like what we have right now! No yellow to the sea. Green in most of Alabama. Matches AL FG (which has recent info) and several other sources. Really just what we have is pretty good. If they just want to make it look more professional fine. But it is good. If I asked for anything, it would be to move the blue within Oregon, up just a tad. right now it covers top 2/3 state and should only cover top 1/3. But really we have come so far and it is so improved. I almost don't want to mess it up.
Just to get tactical. what is the length of time it takes to get a map done. how much should I kiss ass? How much (and how) should I draw ahead of time, so they have the right content. I mean they are more artists than content guys, right?TCO (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
They generally have so many requests they can't keep up. It's always good to be nice to them (and to their asses I suppose) and offer encouragement. Since our's is such complex a request, it may never even get attention.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Very direct, thanks. I will do it myself if I want it. Article is totally FA without it, but if I get around...TCO (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I kinda had a round and round with getting permission for the road sign photo. Got a new email from the photog, giving permission and citing license specifically. He is actually a biologist working for HAT (we cite them). He will come by and look at the page. Says he is a proponent of the "4 subspecies" stuff. Anyhoo. Kinda cool. Guy called me and talked to me on the phone for 20 minutes. They love their turtles in BC!TCO (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. I just did a few more searches. Honest. There is no revocation of the 1994 law. (And it displays in a lot of other databanks). Cleared the caveat out! Let's roll!TCO (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha...I think more people's insights would be nice, let's just sit tight for a minute (couple days at least), I still want to clear out the conversion template stuff among other (small) things.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Whatevz. I was the one who put longwinded informal caveat in there in the first place. If anyone has (paid for) Lexus Nexus go ahead and do a legal search. I did all the manual searches I could think of for Vermont law and the 1994 law shows up front and center and was passed and I found no revocation. I think I was being too cautious in the first place. But if you want to finesse it with a shorter caveat or clear it or whatever, feel free. Short of hiring a lawyer I feel OK. Sorry for writing so much. Need to get head up, butt down and finish link drudgery. Even mapmaking would be better.TCO (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought you weren't happy. I have just been on the phone with a senior guy at VT FG (asst director or some such) and he doesn't know either (although he looked at our reference) since he came to the dept in 1996. He is going to ask some old timers. I would leave it up for now, but of course if I find out it was rescinded we have to take it off. But the law seems to show in the books as "not repealed". Anyhow, he is double checing and I have to call him back in an hour. TCO (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
A. I just re-telephoned Mark Marchand, VT FG asst director. He double-checked. The 1994 resolution stands. no change. Picta IS the state reptile.
B. Will you please just click them and put on today's date? If there are any head scratches, let me know. But I need to push a few other picta prey into my philstrum. ;)TCO (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I reformatted the last four (all the 'state reptile') ones. In the process I think your notes were lost, you can replace them though (can look through history to see what they were previously).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
They look good. I don't think my notes are needed. Let's save that for if there is a controversy or if there is just something super cool. Those refs should be fine.TCO (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I just saw you had to do all the cite template drudgery. I thought it was just adding the date and I had fixed all the cite templating needed. I guess I had kind of brushed the dirt under the rug earlier...TCO (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Did a bunch of MOS checking last night (both in manual as well as even talking to Tony). Guidance is DON'T put images on the left of bulleted text (and they like the bulleted paragraphs for subspecies), but DO have an image that faces into the page. Also, there totally is NOT a rule for alternating left-right. Yes, it can look nice, but if it causes layout images is fine to devolve to more on the right (Tony says they mess up the text less, also the manual definitely does NOT require LRLR alternation). I grabbed this larva from commons as it is still a dragonfly larva, which I hope makes you happy. And faces right way and has a little more contrast. ;) TCO (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The image amendments over the last period I feel have been detrimental to the look of the article. The laying, hatchling and sign are not currently facing into the article and the swimming, larvae and raccoon are bundled together on the right. If the raccoon is going to stay and be on the right then the larvae(or alternative) image wants to be on the right left. It all seems a puzzle at the moment. One possibility is to remove the swimming, larvae and laying images. Regards, SunCreator(talk)02:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I think if the larvae image was put back on the left (and flipped back), the egg laying image were moved to the right and the hatchling emerging was moved left it would look better.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the efforts, all. Nice the way you have it now, NYM. I think the sort of "two and two" looks good and actually has a nice function in comparison (predator versus prey, egglaying versus hatchling). Images to the left of bulleted text just cause problems with text wrap (since they are inherently a slight right-tabbed section)—Tony says he has been told not to do that. Just FYI: can also give issues with a set of numbered bullets, where the image actually cuts off the numbers, see here for example: baton (symbol).TCO (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
^Carr 1952, p. 218-219 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr1952 (help)
^Carr 1952, p. 228 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr1952 (help)
^ abCarr 1952, p. 233 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr1952 (help)
^Carr 1952, p. 224 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr1952 (help)
Done Article has been moved. ZooPro 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Done ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
_1.JPG)
