Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawksbill turtle

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Hawksbill turtle[edit]

Self-nomination. After working hard on the article, I'm being bold and applying for Featured article candidate status. I hope this article is good enough now, I've tried to make it as well-referenced as possible. I hope to be able to address and fix anything else that may be needed to make it FA-worthy. Shrumster 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very nice start, but the lead seems too long and if it's a summary of the body, shouldn't need 12 footnotes. Maybe some of the lead and its notes can be worked into the body.Rlevse 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I actually pulled the lead from the body, trying to summarize the different sections. Are there statements that are too-specific that might be better off left in the body? Shrumster 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question. After looking at the other FA's/FAC's, I just realized that most have no notes/references in the lead. Should I leave the references in the main body of the article? Shrumster 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if possible. A well-written lead will require few, if any, refs as it is a summary of details (and refs) in the body.Rlevse 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Trimmed some superfluous parts of the lead and moved all but four references to the main body of the article. I left more-or-less just one major reference per paragraph, except for the last one where I left one for the turtle's IUCN listing and one for the CITES listing. Shrumster 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work. Just a personal opinion, but I much prefer single column footnotes-;).Rlevse 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks! :) re: references, I'll try juggling between the different formats. I was originally following Nature Journal's 3-column style for their references, though I'll dig up some of my other scientific journals to compare what style they use. :) Shrumster 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (With regards to the above, I don't mind 1 or 2 but I think 3 looks a little cluttered, and I'll also say that Wikipedia doesn't have to follow conventional scientific journals.) Generally, a pretty nice article. A few MoS issues - images shouldn't have preset sizes unless there's a specific reason for it. Is "Cheloniidae" bolded for a reason? I dislike the "Note the serrated margin of the posterior carapace" and the "see below" because they feel like instructions to the reader (this may be somewhere in MoS, but I can't remember). The latter seems a bit unnecessary too. I would try to merge or remove the one sentence paragraphs (like Much is not known about the life history of Eretmochelys imbricata and Throughout the world, hawksbill turtles are taken by humans even though it is illegal to hunt them in many countries) as they break the flow up. There are also a comment in-text about an issue, which should be resolved. Trebor 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks for the suggestions. I unbolded "Cheloniidae" in the lead. As it stands, the family doesn't have it's own article (only the generic "sea turtle" one which also includes Dermochelidae") but that should be easy to stubify in a while. Also changed the caption of the pic and removed the "(see above/below)" lines, tried to integrate them into the more appropriate paragraphs. I removed the commented-out reference (EMBL) since it seems to be unexistent as of the moment. I integrated the other commented-out info (gait) and added a reference, and added more to the turtle's distribution and range from the same reference. Hope all these changes fix the problems. :) Shrumster 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sumoeagle179 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a range map would be nice (not a requirement for FA though). I think the whole article is hard to read, the text does not flow nicely, some examples is the sub section 'Atlantic subpopulation' wich really is a long list written in text, not sure how to fix (if I knew I would but it is not that nice), ~~In 'life history' I would like ot know the time from mating to laying eggs, now I think it is directly, but a more direct description of time would be nice.~~ read WP:MOS for units of measurements and add conversion for ,metric and none metric units, follow MOS for when to use e.g. cm and when to write e.g. kilograms. 'Life history' and 'habitat' is a bit umbigious, they state that they are pelagic and primarily found at coral reefs and highly migratory species, and that they are pelagic for a undetermined amount of time which is until they get to about 35 cm, they also become mature at about 30 years (which might be at 35 cm?) not sure. Anyway, I understand that this is not that easy to find in the literature and probably conflicting, but the text as it is now is a bit confusing at least for me. Good job! I learned a lot. Stefan 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm not sure how to make a range map, I tried to address your other concerns. Added a couple of words that might give a better sense of the passage of time for their life history. Also clarified their habitat preferences (added a bit about hatchlings/juveniles). For the reef-recruitment, like many species, they are recruited to a more reef-associated lifestyle when they reach a particular size. However, the size itself is not a complete indicator of their maturity, which is why they're presented that way in the text (with no OR statements to "link" the two seemingly-related facts). Hope the changes are sufficient. Shrumster 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, range maps is a bit hard to do (as I said I do not think it is FA requirements), do you have a source map online? if so give me the link and I will see what I can do, but I do not think I can do it just from the text in the article. Stefan 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, expanded the measurement units into their full counterparts. Here's an occurence map I found from the WWF website [1], but it's not really a range map. I think this map from the commons can be used as a base, since both the spinner dolphin and hawksbill (and other sea turtles) have tropical-subtropical ranges [2]. For the distribution, I went with first describing the extent of the turtle's distribution per sub-ocean basin that is it found in. And then the rather disjointed-part of the text is a (as of now incomplete) listing of the turtle's nesting and feeding sites. So far, I haven't figured out how to rearrange it, but I guess when more info comes in, they should be separated into "nesting" and "feeding" grounds (which might pose a problem since some specific areas are both). Hope this is ok. I'll check for some more potential distribution maps. Shrumster 06:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a range map [3] will make one and upload, but a bit busy now, will see when I have time. For the MOS comment you should also be consistant with SI and non SI units, now the article sometimes stated inches and sometimes cm, also if we decide on SI, each unit should have the none SI unit in brackets e.g. "2.5 centimeters (1 in)" Stefan 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I fixed the non-metric system stuff in the article (hope I didn't miss anything) and used the FIGIS source to expand the general range of the species to give the specific occurrences proper context. Shrumster 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written. Lead is a little long but other than that it's great. 24.6.160.190

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.