Talk:Painted turtle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --Twilight Helryx 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, Twilight Helryx 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing and for your positive thoughts! I'm a busy person too so I...understand...fragmented...edits.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
- 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.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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.

Also, refs 55("Species Identification"), 56(Western Painted Turtle: Mountain population), and 57(Western Painted Turtle: Pacific coast population) are not correctly formatted. WP:CT would really help here. ;)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Looks good to me.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Yes.
C. No original research:
~~See section 1A.~~ Clear. I was mistaken. =X
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Article is very well illustrated. =)
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. =) --Twilight Helryx 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks again for the review! I will continue to work diligently!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Reviewer

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, Twilight Helryx 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. ;) --Twilight Helryx 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll look back over all of those. The other two have been fixed I believe. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, if that's all the information available, then yes. =) I'll check as soon as I'm able to.--Twilight Helryx 03:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Try using a template from WP:CT. ;) --Twilight Helryx 03:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Twilight Helryx 03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm having a hard time finding the information. Here is the homepage...looking at the url, would the publisher just be Western Connecticut State University?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much.--Twilight Helryx 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A publisher has been added to all those sources. Thanks for your help! :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ^-^ --Twilight Helryx 04:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. =)--Twilight Helryx 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a paragraph that should go with the table nicely.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic table With this table, I was thinking about doing something similar to what's seen in the Loggerhead sea turtle article: a dropdown list in the taxobox. How do you feel about that?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be perfect.--Twilight Helryx 02:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pretty much.--Twilight Helryx 02:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that information has been incorporated into the taxobox. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. =) --Twilight Helryx 20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll continue to sweep the article with the ce brush. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing I've been copy-editing and I think I've corrected all of the confusing sentences. What do you think?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit complete.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratualations! This article now looks good enough to be passed. Well done, everyone!--Twilight Helryx 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Started to think you didn't survive your exams! Thank you and it was great fun working with you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]