Talk:Bog turtle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Episode IV: A New Hope

Okay, I archived the old, cluttered talk page in the hopes that we as a group can begin the Pre-Fa review from scratch. So now, I hereby request this article to be pre-reviewed for FAC on a deeper level. If you feel you can contribute by making helpful, constructive criticisms, please begin here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it up for peer-review and request that it be reviewed to FA standards? Strombollii (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Put it up for a normal peer-review? Hmphh...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's up.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns, Comments

  •  Done Nit-picky, but you should look to revise the alt-text in the article before submitting. I may do this if I get the chance, but look at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for ideas. Strombollii (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)*:: Okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    I went in and reworded all of them, are there any that are still particularly bad?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    A couple of issues, fro my perspective.
  •  Done The introduction seems lacking in scope. The very first line describes the status of the turtle. It would be better served by first, describing the turtle; then discuss its endangered status. The introduction should be an overview of the key topics covered in the upcoming text. I would flip the positions of the first and second sentences.
  •  Done all three have similar patterns on their skin. Can the patterns be described to the reader?
  •  Done between Vermont and Georgia longitudinally,and between Vermont and Ohio latitudinally. This seems such an awkward way to describe relative positions. Is there a reason to avoid north - south vs. east-west?
  •  Done In addition to this enormous threat, the bog turtle is susceptible to illegal collection, The illegal collection is the same cause as the black market trade (this enormous threat) - thus the lead in "in addition to" is misleading in that it suggest otherwise.
  •  Done The bog turtle prefers calcareous wetlands Rather than link this one out, I would perfer a simple statement to explain "calcareous" wetlands.
  •  Done a copious amount of sunlight Sometimes its better to avoid vocabulary enrichment in exchanged for clarity.
  • --JimmyButler (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Mr. Butler, for your first concern, we were leaving the lead for last, after the shorter sections at the bottoms start to fill up a little more, though, I think we got your other concerns for now. You may want to look at the revisions to see if our edits are satisfactory.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a few sections that need more information or you'll get hit for their brevity (many of the FA reviewers are staunchly opposed to "short" sections). Study in the field, Protective legislation, and Public awareness all fit this bill.
  •  Done Study in the field is a rather bizarre name for a subsection. Field study or even just Research mayhaps?
  •  Done Protective legislation could easily be integrated into Public awareness
  •  Done Actually, Public awareness really needs more. You're not really telling me anything in this section other than the fact that we should educate people about endangered species, which isn't noteworthy.
     Done Sort of a sub-point, but why do you iterate the scientific name of the turtle only in the final section? I, personally, wouldn't do it at all, but especially when you haven't done it once since the introduction. This section feels like an attempt to get "global and noble" or whatever the guideline is for writing conclusions that's been pounded into all of our heads.
  • Strombollii (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    (sorry to focus only on the last section, I'll give the whole thing a run-through in a bit. The last section is just rather weak in comparison to the rest of the article and stands out) Strombollii (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's perfectly alright. How's some of the alt text?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Alt text looks better Strombollii (talk)


  •  Done Reference 20. The link takes you to an article with a different title.
  •  Done either alone or in small groups in spring seeps or areas with ground water. The presence of ground water - is nearly universal - should it be something more specific about that ground water? --JimmyButler (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Right at the top "It looks similar to (and lives in the same habitat as) the painted turtle and the spotted turtle because of the similarities between their carapaces..." Somehow I don't think it lives in the same habitat as the spotted turtle "because of the similarities between their carapaces." This needs to be separated somehow. Donlammers (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FAC citation review

I am mostly looking at these for style and formatting, not veracity.

  •  Done There is still a fully cited reference to "Shiels, Andrew L. (2007)" in Notes. Since you have established with this author that you only use the short references in Notes, this needs to be converted. It is pointed to from an awful lot of places, so I suspect that someone also needs to go through and split it up with different page numbers.
  •  Done The Shiels article is actually from "Pennsylvania Angler and Boater magazine." You are just getting a copy from the location that you quote. This really should refer to the magazine, issue, etc.
  •  Done Page numbers for items that are printed should refer to the page number at the bottom of the page, not the PDF page numbers. For instance, for the Shiels article, the start page is not "1", but "23."
  • I consolidated three Carter/Haas/Mitchell citations that were identical.

Sorry, gotta go for now. I will continue later. Donlammers (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "Shiels" ref in notes, but it came up with a thing saying I needed tags?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Something like this for the Shiels ref:
Shiels, Andrew (2007). "Bog Turtles: Slipping Away" (PDF). Pennsylvania Angler and Boater. http://www.fish.state.pa.us/education/catalog/bogturtle.pdf. Retrieved 2010-03-05. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
It's name is <ref name='Shiels PDF'>, there was no spot in the ref generator I used to put page numbers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The ref under References (not Notes) was correct (for now, though eventually we need to put an anchor there so that the footnote can jump to it). I put the old reference back, then went up and fixed the citation. I used the same template someone used on Smith (consistency makes it easier to fix or modify later).

Now comes the mind-numbingly dull part. Right now all of the Shiels citations point to a single footnote, which has "a"-"p" in front of it. And, the footnote says p23-26 (which is all the pages). Someone should go through like with the Smith citation and split this up so that each page has its own version of the citation, and that citation is used where appropriate, rather than having a whole pile of citations pointing to a single footnote (unless, of course, everything that is cited is just on page 24).

I would start with a single page, create a ref with a name like (for instance) shiels_2007_24 (for p24), and then find all of the citations where the information can be found on that page and replace the current ref tags. Then move on to another page. I may be able to do an example page tomorrow morning if you want. Donlammers (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So what are ref #s 16, 19, and 29, split up into as of now? Today and tomorrow my group members will work on getting them new refs to the specific page numbers. Again, thanks a lot for all this.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I started at the top and ended up slogging through the whole mess. I actually read the article and the citations should be pretty close to all citing the correct page. However, someone should cross-check me, as I have been known to make mistakes occasionally. If you need to change any but the first instance of a page citation, just change the page number in the name= quotes. If you need to change the first instance, then you will need to move the citation and </ref> tag down to the next item listed for the page. Donlammers (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I also just added anchor templates to the references, so that the short citations, which look like links, actually work like links. I did this for all three of the authors referenced. The template used for these citations creates the link, but it needs an anchor to jump to. Donlammers (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you did it already, thanks very much. I went through and only had to change one from p. 23 to p. 25. Looks like the Shiels ref is settled.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to point to the original article rather than a reprint, but that's probably not critical. I haven't spotted any other big issues with the citation formatting. I will try to take a closer look yet later this weekend. Donlammers (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do You Think It's Time?

Is the article ready for FAR? How about a vote by everyone who's been monitoring this article:

  • Yes - 2
  • No - 1

Rational: I voted yes because this article is pretty stagnant right now. I mean, it's currently going under a pier review and nobody has suggested anything for at least a week. I feel the prose is good as are the images and internal links. This article would benefit from an FAR.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I upped the Yes vote to 2. Peer review has gotten it as far as that's going to go, and the next step is FAC. Unless someone thinks there is some serious information missing, I think it's time. Donlammers (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be the sole dissenter, but I personally think it's a bit weak in the research department, and would say so if it came to FAC. I recommend going through the list of research papers that I posted (now in archive 1), especially the recent ones, and see if there's info that could be added (there is). I'm not saying that every research article has to be used as a source, but a solid effort should be made to review the recent literature and make sure that 1b and 1c of the criteria are being met. Will be happy to email PDFs of any papers I can access. (p.s. I won't actually take part in the FAC, as I've been too involved, but I think a few more days of checking & adding sources will only make this article better and help ensure a smoother ride at FAC.) Sasata (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that more research needs to be done. Also, I would add that the lead needs to maybe be more encompassing of the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sasata, I'm having a hard time finding the articles: for instance, your second suggestion on the archived page under the heading "WIAFA criteria 1(b) and 1(c)" took me here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00655.x. Is this the article? Same thing here: http://www.chelonianjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2744/1071-8443(2007)6[286:ISSAUS]2.0.CO;2&ct=1 for the fifth suggestion?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in the first instance, it is the same article. Your link to the other article doesn't work for me, but this one does. You will only be able to access the abstracts for most of the research articles I've listed, but from that you can prepare a list of what you'd like to see and I can email any articles I have access to through my university account. Sasata (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, all of your suggestions seem interesting, can I get the URL for several of the ones that you think have the information that most deserve a place in the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
We are very near putting the article up for FAR, if there is still a feeling that the article is lacking in research, it can be brought up in the review (we very greatly appreciate your concerns, its just that we don't have enough time to be just sitting around).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You've nominated your article at the wrong place. WP:FAR is for featured articles that need to be delisted. What you are looking for is WP:FAC. -MBK004 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless Sasata's concerns were addressed, the article would not be FAC ready. Have Sasata's issues been resolved? Please ping him and ask before nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies. The issue is that I, a member of this high school project, am under strict time guidelines. Sasata has been in and out and has not responded to my request for more information regarding the nature of her concern, something I left more than five days ago. Sorry for the mix-up but until I hear more from Sasata I nor any of my group members will not be able to resolve the issue.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you left a message at User talk:Sasata asking him or her your questions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I will do it promptly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary History

I incorporated the Rosenbaum article into the Evolutionary History section (former fossil record). Excellent example of the bottleneck effect, once you got past the scientific jargon. It still fringes on "original research" and I'm not certain how many people looking up bog turtles on wikipedia will grasp the concepts of mDNA variations as it relates to population diversity; however, no one should challenge the depth of research and credibility of references. Also, you need to add the citation to this section from the pdf file you sent.... wasn't sure what format you were using and didn't want to add another version or I'm just too lazy to cite my sources!--JimmyButler (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We're working on generating sources for several of the PDFs that User:Sasata has e-mailed us. Some work and discussion is being done at the bottom of this page in that regard. Thank you for adding that information, another one of the PDFs discusses the same issue, i'll see what other information on that topic we can whip up!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference fixes needed

I was asked by NYMFan69-86 about whether I thought the research was up to snuff. I'll do some reading this weekend and let you know soon (I promise). In the meantime, here's some reference stuff that should be fixed up before FAC: Sasata (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The Ad Cradle article (ref #1) has been removed from the link and is not very helpful now.
Fixed - located new url for this reference.--JimmyButler (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the link for ref #7 (Project Bog Turtle) doesn't show any turtle information
Fixed - the original text posted on this cite seemed to be derived from a NC Wildlife Publication to which it is now linked. excellent reference--JimmyButler (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done ref #8 (Delisle, Dorothy) should be converted to a cite journal template with the website given as convenience link
I believe I did what was asked here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done where are the page numbers for ref #17 (Ernst et al., 2009)?
  •  Done ref #21 (Carter et al., 1999) needs to be converted to a cite journal template. Put the JSTOR link in an id parameter, like I've done for ref #3 (not strictly necessary, just a suggestion)
  • ref #23 claims it's linking to a PDF, but it's actually linking to an html version of the PDF file
Fixed - pdf file located and linked--JimmyButler (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done ref #26 ("Bog Turtle Species Profile". BowTie) will pass not scrutiny at FAC; shouldn't be too difficult to switch citations with something more reliable
  • ref #37 should be a cite conference template (template:cite conference)
  •  Done page numbers for some refs need to be fixed: for example, ref #24 cites page 1 of Rosenbaum, 2007. However, this journal article is numbered pages 331-342. The reader shouldn't have to translate this page 1= that page 331. Personally, I think it's overkill to cite specific page numbers in a journal article, but I suppose it's not against the "rules"
Just FYI: The Shiels and Bloomer articles that were split by pages were done because the articles were cited in a large numbers of places, and the notes looked kind of ugly (this is, of course, a completely subjective matter). The rest were more for consistency than anything else, and would be easy to revert. Donlammers (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No, no...let's not go through that again. I'm pretty sure those refs are fine, all that needs to be done is change the page numbers. The concerns above shall be addressed promptly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Donlammers, for the page numbers for ref #17, they are 270-271, is this an easy fix?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Sasata, I tried fixing ref #21 and here's what I came up with {{cite journal | last1Carter | first1 | Shawn | last2Hass | first2=Carola | last3=Mitchell | first3=Joseph | year=1999 | title= Home Range and Habitat Selection of Bog Turtles in Southwestern Virginia|journal=Journal of Wildlife Management | volume=63 | issue=3 | pages=853-860 | id=JSTOR 3802798 3802798
When I put this in however, the ref list goes absolutely nuts, what do I do (and why does the last number appear twice [3802798]?)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I believe that just about does it, except for the eight concern, which couldn't be addressed because there is no longer a #37. Thanks to every one involved, those were great catches, and I hope this helps our case that this article is ready for FAC (p.s. Is #37 still around?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My assessment: I think some more time working on the article would be a good investment. Standards for species articles have risen considerably at FAC, and you will find yourself being asked to justify why certain sources weren't used. Time spent now to iron out those deficiencies will make for a much smoother ride at FAC. My suggestions for improvement:
  • the "movement" section should be expanded with material from Carter et al., 2000, and Somers et al., 2007 (PDF links in Merry_Beth's Sandbox). Understanding turtle movement is essential in trying to formulate conservation efforts and in understanding population genetics, and I think the article should more clearly indicate this, either in the "Movement" section, or as an expansion of the brief Radiotelemetry mention in the "Solutions" section
I added two sentences to the "movement" subsection. More will be added if the graph in the "Carter" article turns out to be usable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done it seemed odd to me that ref #32 ("A prehistoric record of Glyptemys muhlenbergii…") is being used only as a additional source for the statement "…and promoting beaver activity, including dam construction in and around wetlands." So I checked the original research paper, and nowhere does it mention beavers. In fact, the bog turtle fossil discoveries in New York this paper reports are not mentioned in the wiki article.
Removed--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done One of the links that Thompsma gave was to Elizabeth M. Walton's graduate thesis. Did you check this out? Her literature review is very-well written, illustrated, comprehensive, current (2006), and conveniently compiles all the important literature. I think if you could spend some time carefully going through this and comparing the Wiki article's information with hers, you'd be able to safely allay anyone's doubts about WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c.
  • Why is that Pittman 2009 reference being listed as a specific page # in the notes, and then also in the references? If you're insisting on giving the specific page number for this journal article, then you have to do it for all your references (FAC requires that citation style be internally consistent), but I'm sure you can see this would be ridiculous if taken to its conclusion.
  •  Done Anyother copyedit wouldn't hurt. The Conservation section for example had some sketchy prose (probably because it was a recent addition); I tweaked it but it could use some more eyes. Sasata (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Graph

Hey Sasata, in the PDF entitled Movement and Activity of Bog Turtles (Clemmys muhlenbergii) in Southwestern Virginia, one of the articles linked to in Merry Beth's sandbox, there is an excellent graph of bog turtle movements that I would like to get my hands on. It's on page 77 and deals with the distance and frequency of their movements. Would it be possible to put something like this in the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You could in theory estimate the values from the graph in the paper, redraw with Excel (or something equivalent), and upload that graph to Commons, making sure to indicate clearly in the description where the information came from. I'm not convinced, however, that it wouldn't be better to summarize their results with a couple of sentences. I'll let you make that call :) Sasata (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
True. How's something like that for a summation of the results?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That'll do it, but how about a tweak: in this sentence: "Home-range sizes in Maryland vary from 0.003 hectares (0.0074 acres) to 3.12 hectares (7.7 acres) with considerable amounts of variation between sites and years." Why not express that 0.003 hectares with a more intuitive unit, like "about 300 square feet"? Another suggestion, since the range of this species is largely in the United States, and since the primary editors are from the United States, it would seem logical that all values are given primarily in imperial units with metric secondary. Agree? Sasata (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's very true, but for some reason, a lot of the references give the units in metric first (kind of weird huh?). However, they shall be changed because this article has brought in predominately U.S. interest.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Done.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple of concerns about the Conservation section

I think the Conservation section still needs a little bit more work; it seems almost like a fact dump instead of a flowing narrative. In general I think the two subsections should be merged (  Done ).

Endangerment
  •  Done The opening paragraph seems like almost a word for word copy of the beginning of the Threats section.
  •  Done What is the reader to make of this: "The northern population of bog turtles was first to become threatened. The southern population followed soon after, because of its similarity to the northern population"? Why would the southern population not be similar, they're all bog turtles after all?
Right, right...this was confusing to me too, however, this same thing was said in the majority of the references, so I figured it was necessary to put it in the article (I guess since the northern and southern populations are separated, they are considered different somehow...I don't know).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This point is covered in Ms. Walton's thesis on pgs. 23-24: "As with other turtle species, the bog turtle is faced with two principle threats: habitat loss, due to the draining and filling of wetlands, and the illegal collection for pet trade demands. These pressures have caused a serious decline in the species’ population numbers and consequently, the northern population received protection under the Endangered Species Act (1973) in 1997. However, due to a paucity of data to justify full protection, the southern population was listed as “threatened due to similarity of appearance,” as it would be too difficult for law enforcement officials to make a distinction between the two populations (USFWS 1997)." This and much more information about the disjunct northern/southern populations is available in her thesis. Sasata (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Righto...could I get a link to this article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Definitely... it's been on Merry Beth's sandbox page since January :) Sasata (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were going to say that, but I don't see it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
'*Elizabeth M. Walton's thesis on using remote sensing and geographical information science to predict and delineate critical habitat for the bog turtle, Glyptemys muhlenbergii [1]" Sasata (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done "Bog turtles are late to mature, slow to reproduce, and are constantly suffering from habitat loss." We've been told this several times already. Do we really need to be reminded again? Can't we drop this and just say "Eighty percent of the bog turtle populations that existed thirty years ago do not exist today"?
How's something like this?--Because the bog turtle is slow in adapting to changes, eighty percent of the bog turtle populations that existed thirty years ago do not exist today.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds a lot better to me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Solutions

The feel of this section is all wrong; it reads more like a "How to conserve bog turtles" manual than an encyclopedia article. Needs to be rewritten I think, describing what's been done and is being done, not what could be done. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it may read a little smoother now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a massive improvement, well done. I think this is a terrific article now, and a real credit to your group and your teacher; you should be feeling very proud of what you've achieved. I think that you could safely take this to FAC without too many worries just as soon as Sasata is satisfied. My work here is done. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Walton's Thesis

[2]:This is a great source, but how would one cite it?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Use a cite thesis template with an anchor, and put it in your References section like so:
Note that I've specified the chapter in this case, as I don't think you'll be citing from any other parts of the thesis. Then you can cite specific page #'s like you've done with some of your other refs. (eg. <ref>{{Harvnb|Walton|2006|pp=23–24}}</ref>). Sasata (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That's great, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The things I jotted down here have been put into the article (minus the crossed out ones). The inline citations and anchoring of the reference worked well. One quick question: should I leave the citations with separate page numbers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work in incorporating the additional info from the thesis. In my humble opinion, this article is now ready for FAC :) Sasata (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's great! However, I have added some more info from the Somer's source into the movement section. It now reads well and has a lot of good information. BTW...is this sentence awkward: "Some aspects of a bog turtle's movement that need continued research include: phenomenon that motivate a bog turtle to move outside its natural habitat, a detailed understanding of the distances an individual can be expected to travel on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and year-to-year basis, and how separation of populations effects the genetics of the species?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that sentence in the article now, but I imagine it would sound less awkward in context (i.e. if the reason is given for why this research needs to be done, and whose opinion this is). I'd word it more like this: "Some aspects of a bog turtle's movement that need further research include: phenomena that motivate bog turtles to move outside their natural habitat; the distances an individual can be expected to travel on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis; and how separation of populations affects the genetics of the species." Sasata (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, it's been changed. Thanks again for all of your help!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and we were thinking about FA nomination this Friday or so.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I have significantly reworded the lead, would another pair of eyes mind reading through it to catch any silly mistakes (less than 24 hrs. before FA submission...and the clock is ticking...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're bound to get some comments and suggestions at FAC, some sensible, some less so, but deal with them on their merits. Don't just assume that the reviewer is right, as you probably now know as much about bog turtles as anyone else on here. Good luck! Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the deal with "end dashes?" I notice it comes up a lot in edits. Is there something that we do wrong that could be avoided?--JimmyButler (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean "en-dashes"? The MoS says that "en-dashes" have to be used in some situations and "em-dashes" in others, just a matter of learning the rules. One of the FA criteria is of course that the article conforms to wikipedia's Manual of Style. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone mind enlightening me? I don't even know what either of those things are.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Dashes are of two different lengths; one is wide as the letter "n" (the en-dash), and the other is as wide as the letter "m" (the em-dash). which is obviously twice as wide as "n". It's really no big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
For reference, WP:DASH (disregard the big "disputed" template; the wording—for now—reflects current usage). Hope this helps, Steve T • C 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Distribution Map

How do you feel about the comment left concerning the current distribution map?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Small issues now!

Invasive plants and urban development have 'threatened' the bog turtle's habitat, substantially reducing its numbers. Sounds like more than a threat, but a real problem. has lead to the destruction... has degraded.... has negatively altered ... --JimmyButler (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "erased much of"...Question. What's your take on this?:

" [...] 'its slowness in adapting to change' -- this sentence seems odd; if evolutionary change is meant then this is the case for the vast majority of species.

  • What was meant here was its inability to adapt to a changing habitat (i.e. clearing of land, destructive construction of buildings etc.)
  • "slowness" implies that it is evolving, just not quick enough, in response to human-caused habitat alterations [...]."
I figured you were the person to ask because the AP Bio 2010 family knows you as the evolution expert!
Also, the last sentence of the "Evolutionary History" section...did we include that or was that a part your edits? It has a "Citation Needed" tag and I just need to know I should look through the refs and find that info.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is the sentence is ambiguous. Are the turtles adapting as individuals over the course of their life time as you might adapt to the challenges of a new teacher? or Is it that the species is adapting over successive generations via random mutations and natural selection. If it is the former than slow versus fast is appropriate; if it is the latter than I agree with the critic; most organisms (especially reptiles) tend to adapt slowly - hence the extinction of the dinosaur! Perhaps clarification of which of the above applies may resolve the problem.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I need to take another look at the reference. I asked the commenter where this phrase was because, either from the massive editing that has been going on or because of the rearrangement of entire sections, I can't seem to find it again. Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, note the inline comment requesting expansion of sunlight required for optimum nesting conditions. I'm inclined to agree - is it required for heat? If so elaborate. I told ya - no stone goes unturned in an FA - the project article grows better by the day! If you build it - they will come.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was this, on the review page?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Under edit mode - in the actual article on the turtle. It is possible to leave messages that will not show up in the actual article but still be visible as a inline message when editing. In my browser it appears high-lighted in brown. It was near the beginning under habitat - I think.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Noted and fixed. Thanks for telling me about it otherwise I never would have known it was there. Btw, do I leave the request or can I take it out now that it has been addressed?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, there appears to be another one directly under the "Movement" heading, although I can't quite make out what it's asking/concerning/suggesting. Any ideas?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That was one I added, to explain why I'd commented out the opening sentence, which never really made much sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I think the problem is that the sentence is trying to do too many things at once. Also, it seems like it trying to classify all the movements a bog turtle makes.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been taken out altogether. Some further discussion about it has been done on the review page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Small sections

Would it be best to simply combine the "similar species" material into the "description" paragraph? There, it feels like, the species can be compared/contrasted.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Check against Ernst and Lovich

I'm going through the article using the text of Ernst and Lovich (2009) "EL09" to detect any discrepancies:

  • (p. 263) "The carapace is domed and rectangular in shape" (article)—EL09 says sides may be divergent behind
  • I'm not even sure what the word "divergent" means in the field of biology...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • They move away from each other, i.e. the shell is broader at the back. That's not a specifically biological meaning, by the way.
  • I don't know that this is necessary (most people won't know what it means...I don't think).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't have to use the word "divergent". If I were to write the article, I would say something like "the carapace is rectangular, but may become slightly broader towards the back". Ucucha 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added another sentence regarding the typical shape.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Article says head is brown and matches shell and then that the scutes of the shell are black. EL09 say it's brown to black.
  • Added. Although maybe not in the most easy-to-read manner (reword at will).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 say that scutes may also have a pattern of radiating lines
  • EL09 mention a few more points of description that this article omits
  • I added some information on the blotch on the side of its head. A lot of the rest (that isn't already included) I am unsure of their meanings (like what does it mean to be "notched," and what is the area "behind the tympanum?").--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The tympanum is something in the ear.
  • I've added a few more things, most of what I didn't add are things I don't understand (and I don't want to put in things I don't understand).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the average length in this article? Also, this article appears to give the average for males and a maximum for females—why? EL09 give larger values for maximum "SCL"; don't know what that means.
  • These numbers are pretty wishy-washy. I am fairly confident in the current (average) lengths, as they are from one of our most reliable sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I was unclear here: I meant what the measurement is that is given as "length". Total length from snout to tip of tail? Ucucha 00:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The article gives an average length for males and says that females reach another length, which suggests one is an average and the other is a maximum. Is that intentional?
  • Oh, oh...I see what you're saying. I changed "female's reach" to "female's typically reach." and also included "straight carapace length" as per the source.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed "females typically reach" to "the average female length is". Is this the change that was suggested by the comment?--Merry Beth (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (pp. 263–264) EL09 mention geographical variation in sexual dimorphism, omitted here.
  • This would be one of the things I couldn't see as appropriate for an encyclopedia. The disparity in the differences in males and females between individual states seems a little extreme.
  • (p. 264) EL09 give explanation for sexual dimorphism, omitted here.
  • The explanation has been added.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 don't mention occurrence in Ohio or Vermont, but do mention a record from Rhode Island that is omitted here.
  • The map in the current Wikipedia article is spot on with the one in this ref. A distribution borders Ohio, an area that includes bog turtles (something I have seen from several sources). This source mentions a possible distribution in Rhode Island, yet doesn't seem confident enough to put it on their map. Also, several whole web pages are dedicated to bog turtle colonies in Vermont (so i'll leave it for now because I don't want to change anything based on one source).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The details of the distribution appear to vary a lot among sources. Well, I'll leave this now.
  • EL09 mention extensive overlap with another species of turtle, omitted here.
  • (p. 265) Mention reason why northern and southern populations are separate, omitted here (hint: it's not that they don't like Virginia).
Too funny, apparently it is the other way around, Virginia did not particularly care for the turtle.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Issue addressed under evolutionary history - those damn Yankees came down and kilt them all.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 have additional comparisons with similar species.
  • Again this is another area where I believe less is more. This is an article on the bog turtle, and thus the specific similarities between it and other turtle species that exist in its area are pretty expendable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 say upper distributional limit is 1373 m, this article says 1200 m.
  • EL09 give estimates of the number of colonies in existence and more details on the plants in its habitat.
  • The specific number of colonies is impossible to monitor (because it's always changing). Also, I feel "Rushes, tussock sedge, cattails, jewelweed, sphagnum, and various native true grasses are found in the bog turtle's habitat," is more than an adequate list of plants in its habitat (something not all too imperative to the article in the first place).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure it's changing, but why would that be a reason not to give estimates? Ucucha 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On re-reading their text: you have an estimate of the number of habitable sites for the northern population, why not also for the southern? "A 1991 survey found 96 colonies of southern bog turtles, most of which were in North Carolina and Virginia."
  • Yeah, I put in the number for the southern population as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention a suggestion that it may also be active during the night, omitted here.
They may be active at night in New Jersey. I would avoid hypotheticals, especially if it is limited to a isolated region and not representative of the group Such information may be relevant to those interested in future research but is not suitable for a general summary of the species.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There are actual observations of nocturnal activity. Wouldn't the article be incomplete when it just says that it's diurnal, without mentioning contradictory data? Ucucha 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
At least in this source - I read it as "suggest" they are nocturnal in Jersey; which does not seem very committal. I added "primarily" as a begrudging compromise although I think that may be misleading, by giving it undue credit. No doubt every diurnal species has at least one insomniac individual.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
On re-reading, I agree; even the "primarily" may not be necessary. Ucucha 12:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 say they seek shelter when the day is warmest, omitted here.
I have added this, though a copy-edit may be needed--Merry Beth (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 say activity often increases after rain, omitted here.
I have added this, though a copy-edit may be needed--Merry Beth (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (p. 266) This article says they hibernate from mid-October to late March: EL09 give much more varied estimates.
  • EL09 give more detail on temperatures; this article says they get out of hibernation at 10 degrees C, they say it's generally active at 16–31 degrees C (among other things).
  • Temperature changed, other values are inconsequential.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 says they may become subterranean instead of estivating.
  • EL09 write on how many matings occur per individual per year, omitted here.
  • "Nesting takes place between April and July."—EL09 say May to July.
  • This can be expected to vary between sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it's best to take the broadest range. Ucucha 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention average clutch size, omitted here.
  • I've added some more specifics, from other sources though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention that older females tend to lay more eggs.
  • (p. 269) EL09 mention a record of a captive producing two clutches in a single year. too specific
  • EL09 give more detail on size and form of the eggs.
  • EL09 mention when hatchlings emerge from nests.
  • Wait, what do you mean? I looked through the source and didn't really see anything on this (do you mean time of day, time of year...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Time of year, August–September according to EL09. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks for pointing that out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention other threats to eggs than predators alone.
  • Added some (not particularly well written sentences though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give more detail on growth rate.
  • I added some more information about this (I'm not even going to touch that huge, long list growth percentages though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention that they found turtles >30 years old, not >50 as in article.
  • The Walton source mentioned that they can live "perhaps" 50 years or more, that's why it was included (it is also a very reliable source).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (p. 270) EL09 give much more detail on what it eats, including estimates of dominant food items.
That list is exhaustive - those interested in that level of detail can link via the reference - I strongly discourage anything more than a summation of diet.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to go into the detail they have, but I think what is in the article now is too little. Compare an article like Lion#Hunting an diet, which has information on prey preferences and similar things. Ucucha 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I added an "in general" kind of statement (I don't just want to pick random items from the list because I don't want to make judgements as to which ones are the most important).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give more predators and give the species that prey, not only general categories like "snake".
  • EL09 mention population density, omitted here.
  • We have "However, research has shown that colony densities can range from 5 to 125 individuals for every 0.81 hectares (2.0 acres).[27]" Does this suffice?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (p. 271) EL09 mention the specific bacteria infecting it.
  • See FAC review page for my current opinion.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would include the bacteria as relevant since its not just a synopsis of random turtle infections but rather a specific threat with "devastating effects" on populations. It can likely be worked in where you list all the other threats. This little beast does not stand a chance.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Some has been added (more may be necessary).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't know if "genuses" is a word?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The correct form is "genera". Ucucha 12:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not all of this needs to be in a Wikipedia article, but a lot of it does. Ucucha 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Just so I'm clear, what does "omitted here" mean, omitted from the wikipedia article. I really want to make sure of that before I start including things.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that means "omitted from the Wikipedia article". Ucucha 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Such a thorough review of your efforts should is appreciated, the interest and time required to do such a thing is far more rewarding than the poor students who were unfortunate enough to receive no feedback on peer review request. The goal of such critiques is to improve the article - not simply to prove its not Fa worthy.I also know you have diligently responded to every criticism with a passion and with amazing patience; however, take note of the last suggestion "Perhaps not all of this needs to be in a Wikipedia article..." One of the down sides of the FA process is the, not all to uncommon morphing of a clear and concise entry into a overly bloated dissertation. The process rarely leads to clarity or readability as the authors attempt to address every challenge raised in the process. An exhaustive and complete inclusion of every detail on any subject is typically beyond the requirements of any encyclopedia. I would for example, question the need to address karyotype unless the number of chromosomes in a bog turtle are of compelling interest when compared to other turtles. I would even question detailed physical descriptions involving morphological structures that no one will possibly understand (although I may be in the minority with that view). I would even be inclined to suggest the listing the specific species of snakes that consume them is marginally relevant unless it is an essential predator - prey relationship for either. A listing of potential bacterial pathogens on bog turtles, may be relevant if the bacteria infect no other types of turtles; otherwise general disease could be added to the "turtle" article for those who are concerned, along with generalized statements on internal anatomy and physiology that would apply equally to all turtles. Clearly, the conflicts in information need to be addressed for accuracy - one false statement and you've done more harm than good; however, differences in information is not at all uncommon between sources as some tend to generalize more than others - I suggest that you be certain of the accuracy of your source and its legitimacy and not get too caught up in conflicts between experts on whether the shell fades to black or fades to blackish - brown. This listing of omitted information can be performed on every article on Wikipedia involving an organism (and should be)- even the ones that are FA. Regardless, I don't think the intent is to compel you to create an article that is inaccessible to the average reader who will become "Bogged" down in minutia as they attempt to gain a basic understanding of the turtle. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
PS. You may be interested in this article Noronha skink as an example of FA composed by Ucucha; as I told you guys, you would be held to the highest of standards. Keep the faith, it is a very select group but one I'm certain you would be proud to join. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For ease of reference, I added blank lines before every point that hasn't been struck yet. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A few more things I noticed while reviewing the article (not necessarily related to Ernst and Lovich):

  • The sentences "The biggest problem the turtle faces is the destruction of its habitat. As the bog turtle's habitat deteriorates, it relocates to a new wet meadow, often created by forest fires or beaver activity." don't seem to fit the section "Natural threats", as they are talking about anthropogenic habitat destruction.
  • Good catch, this has been taken out. We already say "Changes to the bog turtle's habitat have resulted in the disappearance of 80 percent of the colonies that existed 30 years ago.[5]" in the Conservation section, thus I feel it doesn't really need to be put back in.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The piece about relocation could perhaps be put in somewhere, though. I remember that Ernst and Lovich write that one cause of its decline is reduction in beaver activity. Ucucha 17:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give more detail on hibernation sites and indicate it's tolerant of anoxia.
    • The anoxia point is interesting, I think; the other information they have seems too much for this article. The paper they cite for that [anoxia] is this one. I got the PDF, but it doesn't really say more than Ernst and Lovich do. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the anoxia fact is relevant as it's a characterization of their habitat (however, would you mind telling me about where it is on page 266, I can't seem to find it?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence on the first paragraph of the right column: "Mud burial ...". Ucucha 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Got it. I put it in behavior (after a sentence related to the topic).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (p. 267) EL09 mention they are capable of homing, omitted here.

I'm not sure that the homing abilities of the turtles is crucial information for the article.--Merry Beth (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "crucial", but I do think it's an interesting point, and one of the few clues to the animal's cognitive abilities that we have. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ucucha, I found this interesting enough that I sought additional information; although it is well known in sea turtles, I was intrigued to see it in freshwater species. Perhaps something similar to this 'off the cuff': Released bog turtles have demonstrated the ability to return to their point of capture from distances up to ___ feet?, indicating the possession of a homing ability not unlike that demonstrated by sea turtles. Or maybe the sea turtle part is overkill? --JimmyButler (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can make a connection with homing in sea turtles unless the sources do that. The source for this fact is Holub, R. J. and T. J. Bloomer. 1977. The bog turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergii: a natural history. HERP. (Bull. New York Herpetol. Soc) 13:9–23, which I think is an earlier version of one of the sources cited in the article. Ucucha 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, although I know I saw a reference that made that association - but can't seem to relocate it for citing. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I added the general information for now (movement section).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (p. 268) EL09 mention mating usually occurs in the afternoon, omitted here.
  • I don't think we should include this (pretty specific).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not much more specific than the amount of time the copulation takes or the season when it takes place, both of which are in there. And it'd only be a few words. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would include, the statement seemed very affirmative in the text; not just the Jersey turtles; you never know, if you wanted to watch them mate [3] it would be helpful to know when to look.
Added in what I hope was a reasonable location for "flow". Move as necessary. I wonder what factor favors "afternoon sex" over morning... temperature and MBR? There is your master thesis D.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give much more detail on how mating occurs.
  • I think what we have is pretty good (mating isn't exactly a concept that's too hard to understand).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be to make sure people understand what mating is; rather how courtship and mating occur in this turtle. That said, what is here seems a fair summary of the entire mating process and though some additional details may be worthwhile (like males pushing females underwater), I don't think it's necessary. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a fair bit, I think it's definitely better now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention more anthropogenic threats.
    • Most seem to fall under the general banner of habitat destruction, which is adequately covered here; you might want to mention roadkill as an additional threat. Ucucha 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Road traffic problem has been added.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. What do you mean in that sentence by "Although adverse"? Ucucha 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just changed it (adverse means something other than what I thought it did).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give karyotype, omitted here.
  • I can't see this (very specific) information helping the article in any significant way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The karyotype is pretty basic information, I think. You mention what color its head has, why not how many chromosomes it has? Ucucha 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Because I don't see many (if any) current FA species articles that mention number of chromosomes (find me a couple of examples and i'll reluctantly throw the information in).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I always include it when the information is available. Gray Mouse Lemur and Aiphanes also have it, but that was at my suggestion during the review, I believe. Drosera regia also mentions karyotype; that's one I had no involvement with whatsoever. Ucucha 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me and my partner chew on this...we'll let you know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We have discussed it, and, after searching FA species articles, we realized that the vast majorities mentioned nothing in regards to genetics, so I think, for now, we'll leave it out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm still inclined to favor omission of information at the cellular level. Especially if the karotype is in no way distinctive from the rest of the turtles of the world. Parthenogenesis is never mentioned - no cases reported I assume?--JimmyButler (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This is one place where we genuinely disagree, I think. To me, the karyotype is simply basic descriptive data. The karyotype is indeed apparently identical to that of the wood turtle, though (Ernst and Lovich p. 251), and turtle karyotypes seem pretty uniform at 50–56. Perhaps it's best if we ask other people, like those who reviewed the FAC, what they think. Ucucha 19:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My problem with including this is that it won't make sense if we put it in willy-nilly. That is, in order for us to include it and have it fit well, we would need perhaps a whole paragraph concerning the microbial/cellular make-up of the bog turtle, something I am afraid of doing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need that; it can just go at the end of the first paragraph of "Description" or so. Ucucha 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, okay, my head hurts, it's in there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Ucucha 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


  • EL09 give a broader range for the incubation period.
  • We have some numbers (I can't find any for an actual period of time in Ernst and Lovich).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • IP = incubation period. They give 42 to 80 days, this article 42 to 56. Do other sources say anything about this? The discrepancy seems rather large. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Are there other sources though? If sources disagree like this, I'd rather note that in the article than just go with one. I do think Ernst and Lovich is the better source, though. Ucucha 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well...the Smith source (on page three) says "42-56 days.
  • The Bloomer ref (on page 15) days "45-80" days.
  • Of the current refs, I think these are the only two (other than Ernst) that mention incubation period.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here are a few more. I'd be inclined to say that Smith is likely wrong here, so we can keep it as is. Ucucha 00:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention the size of the nest, omitted here.
    • Seems relevant to me, and not more technical than what is already there about the nest. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Added to second paragraph of Life Cycle section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 give more detail on aggressive behavior, including territory size and female aggression.
    • Definitely some points here that would add to the article (the two I mentioned in particular). Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we hit the males pretty well. Female-female has been added (but I feel it needs a copyedit).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Made a small edit. Perhaps also mention the size of the territory they defend? (Not sure about this one myself.) Ucucha 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Males move an average of 2.1 meters (6.9 ft) per day and females an average of 1.1 meters (3.6 ft)."—EL09 gives data that are an order of magnitude higher (and, to be fair, also some that are similar to these figures).
    • Here too I think you do have to expand. Giving just one estimate is misleading when others are so different. Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you've compromised on all other measurements because ours were larger, it's only fair I change mine (the new ones are in).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean there. I don't see why you replaced one with the other, as I see no reason why this one is better than the other; rather, it's best to say that there are several estimates of movement per day (Ernst and Lovich also list one of only a few m/day). Ucucha 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This may be a bad idea, but could I include the low extreme from one source and the high extreme from another and cite both?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There's also variation between sexes, of course, but I think you could say something like "Different studies have found that males move an average of X to Y m per day and females Z to W m per day." Ucucha 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, you know what it was...I put in the info from current ref #36, which dealt with movements in general (i.e. in one day, they make take 6 or 7 trips of 1.1 meters...or something like that). Thus, that study was not talking about daily movements, making what we have in there the best citable information.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • But Ernst and Lovich also cite a Maryland study which found 2.99 m/day for males and 2.66 m/day for females. Ucucha 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And on p. 267 there's data from NC: 2.1 m/day for males and 1.1 m/day for females. Ucucha 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So what do you think should be put in?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you should put in the lowest one (from NC) and the highest (the upper one of the two that are now on the page). Ucucha 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I put in the two sets and cited their pages. These few sentences may need copy-editing, and also, the paragraph may need an explanatory sentence regarding the different numbers.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • EL09 mention hybridization with other turtles, omitted here.
  • We initially included this, however on the review page, one contributor asked if the offspring produced would be viable or if it was a common occurrence in the first place. I had no answers for him and, thus, removed the bit of information (I have seen this in no other sources).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see why you'd need to take out the fact entirely because you don't have those details. The original source for this appears to be Ernst, C.H. 1983. Clemmys guttata (spotted turtle) x Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle). Natural hybrid. Herpetological Review 14(3):75. (Not available online.) Ucucha 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate that we lack access to that source- I've scanned high and low to see if hybrids are viable - I really want to know. I agree, hybridization is enormously relevant, with or without that answer. Perhaps later we can track down someone with university access.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I can get it. I don't expect it says much more of relevance than what is in Ernst and Lovich, though. Ucucha 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Should, for now, I just include that they hybridize?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. (This is the last one here, but there's also the issue with organization that is buried somewhere above—I'll probably move it down here.) Ucucha 02:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I put it in under life cycle (first paragraph).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not too happy with placing predation under a "Natural threats" section. I haven't seen any evidence that predation is in fact a threat to bog turtle populations, and in general predation may rather keep a population healthy than threaten it.
  • I think the problem here is the section title. It was kind of made on a whim. Perhaps it can be better worded to meet the information in the section (Ecology perhaps).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I usually put predation and disease under an "Ecology and behavior" or similar section, like at marsh rice rat and Noronha skink. I think that could work here too; you could also make "Life cycle" a subsection. Ucucha 17:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So have an "Ecology and Behavior" heading with: Hibernation, Movement, Diet, and Life cycle all being subheadings? That could work as long as you don't think it would create a section of partially unrelated things.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, and just put the two paragraphs of "Natural threats" at the beginning of that section. Ucucha 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I can further complicate things "Many of the primary predators on bog turtles and their nests are human commensals, i.e., they flourish in the presence of humans and the landscapes that they alter. This is particularly acute for species such as the bog turtle, which occurs primarily in agricultural landscapes where the presence of raccoons, skunks, opossums, and crows can pose a significant threat. How significant a threat these subsidized species pose to bog turtles is hard to determine, although in certain populations it is speculated that predation of adults and eggs is a serious problem." [4] . Maybe there is a connection between "un-natural" perpetuation of "natural" predators?
  • It seems like this would fit better in the conservation section (i.e. where we already talk about the alteration of landscapes and its effect on bog turtles).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also: D. would it help create a new section (Yet to be addressed concerns) and copy paste the ones remaining there. I'm going blind trying to find the specific location and concern I wished to address! The list is impressively shorter and the article significantly better. The AP Exam is Monday --- I do not wish to see you editing in the wee hours on Sunday night! Cheers - very cool guys. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ucucha 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Muuuuuuuuuch better!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet to be resolved

Empty now—changed to support at the FAC. Ucucha 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wahoo!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yay! :) --Merry Beth (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the images

I was previously told that the images should be placed such that the turtle is facing towards the text. I tried to keep it like this, but it was rather difficult to keep the images alternating from the left and right side of the article and facing the right way. I don't really care either way, does anyone else have an opinion?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I broke this with my last edit (I placed a left-facing image at the left and a right-facing image at the right). In my mind, it's more important to place images with the text they belong with than to ensure they face the right side, but I don't care much either. Ucucha 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's quite alright. It takes nothing away from the article, I was just wondering.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of compromises of whether they point in or look balanced alternativeness etc, but the recent edits really messed it up in both ways IMO. So give me a moment and I'll adjust. I'm going to look at reflecting the images. Regards, SunCreator (talk)
The turtles are now all facing in(Press Ctrl-R if your browser is caching). The Striped skunks is not facing in, although with two of them maybe that is okay. An alternative would be to move to a File:American Red Fox.jpg another predictor of the bog turtle. For now I think I'll leave it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
All is well, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bog_turtle/Archive_2&oldid=1078749371"