Wikipedia:Peer review/Bog turtle/archive1

Bog turtle[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… me along with a group of students have put some work into this article in the hopes to bring it up to either GA or FA status by January 10th.

Thanks, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a high school project, high schoolers are a lot more studious than they used to be. GA or FA by Jan. 10 will be challenging, however, if only because of the time reviewers take. Some quick comments. You're all over the place on capitalization. It should be "bog turtle," not "Bog turtle" or "Bog Turtle." And do correct "Bug turtle." Details matter. I'm wondering if you should continue to call them "bogs" as sometimes I think you are writing about actual bogs or swamps. I'd pick a related GA or FA article to compare it to and check capitalization, format, etc. to that model.

The section on Facts Specific to Different States seems to be a miscellaneous grab bag, e.g. "A piece of legislation unique to Connecticut that concerns the bog is the Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 26-311 and the Connecticut Regulation 26-66-14a." What does the law say? Why is it important? Perhaps this section should be combined with the "Populations" section below it. More after the weekend.

Okay, I believe I caught all the capatilization errors in the article (althought I couldn't find a "bug" turtle), changed all references to them to exclusively "bog turtle," and deleted the irrelevent sections about the different states. We appreciate your feedback and hope we have addressed all your concerns.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found and corrected a Bog and a bug (in the captions). I'm not sure that I would have thrown away all that info in the "Different States" section - only throw some out and figure out better place for putting the rest (i.e. a better organization). OK, now to get really picky, here are some sentences that strike me as confusing or have the wrong word choice. The bolded words are what really throw me. It can be hard to say exactly what is wrong, since I don't know exactly what you wanted to say, but if I'm confused, others might be as well.

It is the only turtle protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act because it is considered threatened at the federal level and endangered in some states.
It is illegal to keep a bog turtle or its eggs for any length of time. ("keeping" implies some time minimal period)
Due largely to its small size and unique characteristics, it is hugely desired in the black market pet trade. ("Because of," and maybe "in demand")
Basic appearance of wetland that can sustain bog turtles (taken in Pennsylvania). (Do you really mean to say that this is what the habitat looks like, or do you mean to say that this is the habitat of the bog turtle?)
Deep, muddy soil provides bog turtles with a way to avoid the dangers of extreme changes in weather and a way to evade predators. - (Maybe: Deep, muddy soil allows bog turtles to avoid the dangers of extreme weather and to evade predators.) Though I see "allow" is in the next sentence, which btw confuses me "Spring seeps and groundwater springs" - it takes me awhile to figure out whether they are nouns or verbs, or both.
The southern population of bog turtles is much smaller and exists in ~~states such as~~ North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. (better yet, just restate)
just removed a "basic," which is, basically, an overused word.
However, the reason becoming increasingly more common is the fourth, protection, underwhich falls the movement from one habitat to another to find more suitable living conditions. This is called an extrapopulation movement and for bog turtles the distance it must travel for its journey to be classified as such is about a third of a mile (half a kilometer). (this just needs to be sorted out and taken one step at a time)

Well, I said I was being picky, and I left a few for other editors, but if this is the worst you are doing ok.

Comments by Innotata (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here! This article is fairly well written, and I (very unusually) can find no real flaws in one section–description–though this does not mean it can not still be improved. I think that the text of this article could be extended, and that some matters are entirely excluded: the relations and evolution of the species, for instance. There are a large number of minutiae I could point out, and much of the text needs mild clarification. I do not understand what units the populations section refers to. Subspecies? "Population", in biology, normally refers to about the smallest diagnosable group: the population of a pond, for instance. I would remove the statement on "the practice of giving an organism's common name after people" becoming less common. A local newspaper is not the best of sources on the matter, and to the best of my knowledge this is not true. How do bog turtles "congregate in colonies"? A colony of turtles is a rather unfamiliar sight to me. I suspect that an important source for the unclear statements is the use of unoriginal phrasing, as at hibernation, where the article refers to "support structures". Finally, I personally don't believe an animal article deserves featured article status if it does not include citations to important scholarly works (as at Tree Sparrow), though I can understand the difficulty for the primary contributors here. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes by bibliomaniac 1 5 06:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "population" is not a particularly collegiate term. I would use "range instead. Also, I would merge the two subsections about the Northern and Southern populations into a single paragraph, because neither of them are particularly substantial enough to stand alone. In fact, population is much better off as a subsection itself of "Distribution and habitat."
What type of manmade threats or invasive plant species pose a threat? You have a picture of a purple loosestrife, but if it's relevant to the bog turtle it should most definitely be cited.
"Will eat from already dead animals." Do you mean that they eat carrion, or that they'll eat food from dead animals? Bad wording.
Development could be expanded, and the short, choppy paragraphs in the end of the reproduction section should be merged into another paragraph. Suggestion for that: Merge in the short longevity section into that paragraph.
As a form of standardization, please use {{Convert}} for all your temperatures.
I believe there is more that needs to be cleaned up before it can reach GA status. I encourage you to consult the sample articles WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles offers for ideas on how to better organize the article.

First of all, thanks everybody for your concern. I believe I caught most of it.

Some things I didn't do or am not sure on:

I am unsure of how to cite a pucture.
I didn't know what I should have used in place of "populations" so I just went with it.
Didn't I cover what man made threats and plant species threaten bog turtles?
The picture of the wetland is their just to show readers what their habitats look like, but if you feel like it is completely irrelevent and should not be in the article than I can take it out.
The "facts specific to different states" was removed because I knew it was unnecessary as soon as I put it in.
I know I need more relevant pictures but I am having a hard time with wikicommons.

Basically (used sarcastically here), I appreciate the help and would like your feedback on the minor changes. Also I coold use som help withh sp3l1ing in tha ar1icl3.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes: does "population" mean subspecies, and does living in "colonies" mean spotty distribution? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population does not mean subspecies, the bog turtle is the same turtle with the same characteristics no matter where it is found. Colony simply means that there are seperate dwellings for different numbers of bog turtles. For instance, 100 bog turtles may live in a certain marsh and 20 miles away another 30 bog turtles may live in another marsh, both of those would be colonies of bog turtles (am I using the word "colony" wrong in the article or something?). Thanks for the feedback!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using "colony" and "population" incorrectly. A colony may be thought to mean something like a hyrax colony. Do you know what a subspecies is? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Colony is a group of organisms of the same kind living or growing in close association". This meaning can be used here however it is not an ideal discription. Zoo Pro 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every place I go to says northern and southern "populations" though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Just a couple things, really.

You don't need such extensive sourcing in the lead. The lead should ideally have little to no citations, as it is a summary of information that should be cited in the body of the article. Exceptions are usually made for surprising or controversial statements made in the lead.
"Bog turtles congregate in colonies in southwestern Vermont, northern New York, northeastern Ohio, and south to the Appalachian Mountains in Georgia and South Carolina." I'm confused. Is their range restricted to these specific locations or are these just the extreme ends of their range? Perhaps the wording could be cleared up some. Also, you may want to consider creating a distribution map.

OK, I was having the whole lead/citation/referencing discussion towards the bottom of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimmyButler), perhaps it belongs here (I apolagize for that). So I guess I need to take the references out of the lead and put the information in the article a second time in the main body (that time with the references). As for the first sentence of the Distribution and Habitat section I will look back through the references and make that clearer. Also, I went to the map making page and found out that you need photoshop (which I don't have) to make one. I think we can make a map a little bit later on (if we decide to go all out in hopes for FA nomination). Thank you so much. By the way, where do you stand on the whole "population," "colony," and "range," issue (debated a little bit above this)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]