Talk:Bog turtle/Archive 1

Thanks For Your Help
Derg, Ettrig, Wassupwestcoast, Yohmom, JimmyButler
 * No worries! With help like mine, I'm more likely scaring you guys off :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No! You give good advice and links.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference List
Put the list of references here (not on the actual article page) until you incorporate their information into the article.

--Merry Beth (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would try to stay away from the fifth reference (Greensleeves ). Blogs are generally not acceptable.--Yohmom (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)



PDF references link to HTML versions where the PDF is available. Some of the publishers are uncertain such as reference 9 in which no publisher is shown but the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program seems to be closely tied. Any review or improvement on these references would be greatly appreciated.--OomnyMalchick (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By truncating the http address I managed to work backwards from the page to its original producer. On ref. 9 --- try this link http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/ensphome.htm

How do i update the reflist the put new sources in? It's just "reflist" in the coding. I really need to figure this out because at the moment, i can only use already used resources which are usually pretty tapped out for new information. --OomnyMalchick (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Nevermind I think I just figured it out--OomnyMalchick (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oll Korrect. So now I can't figure out how to but a reference in the article without posting it to the reflist multiple times. Yes I am really bad with computers.--OomnyMalchick (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bog Turtle wallpaper
National Geographic Bog Turtle wallpaper Too cool by half. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary
AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential for your team to monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. Nice to see something done - whatever it may have been. JimmyButler (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * ✅First parts in Physical Attributes and Habitat are grammatically incomplete sentences. --Ettrig (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅possibly plants like duckweed, water lettuce, and possibly more. is diffuse and explicitly speculative. If this is just a guess, as it sounds, then remove it. --Ettrig (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Wikipedia says that ounce has several definitions. Could we please have the metric value also? --Ettrig (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarizing
This passage: ''The plants most often found in the bog turtles’ habitat include cattails, rushes, jewelweed, skunk cabbage, sedges (particularly tussock sedge), sphagnum, and various native grasses. Common trees and shrubs that are found in these areas include red maple, alder, willows, and poison sumac.''

Is too similar to the referenced source:

''The wetland plants most often found in these areas include cattails, rushes, jewelweed, skunk cabbage, sedges (particularly tussock sedge), sphagnum, and various native grasses. Common trees and shrubs include red maple, alder, willows, and poison sumac.''

There are several more passages that almost copy the source like this. The method of working seems to have been to copy the text and make some modifications. This method is in essence plagiarizing. In Wikipedia it is necessary to create original texts although the content must be supported by other texts, the sources. One way could be to extract a list of the important words, if possible replaced with synonyms, reshuffle the list, sort the words into categories/headlines, leave it a couple of days to forget the original formulations. Formulate anew with inspiration from the word list. --Ettrig (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, I went back and re-edited, but I'm still not sure if it is enough.--Merry Beth (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what heads up means. A lot is also copied from this site, currently ref No 3. As I wrote above, I don't think the method of changing and changing until the new text is sufficiently unlike the source is reasonable. We want a method that guarantees an independent text immediately. That is, the formulations should be original although the Wikipedia text is completely dependent on the sources for the factual content. This is a bit paradoxical. Attainment of independence is made even more difficult by the requirement to specify a reliable source for almost every statement. I suggest that you talk to the teacher about this. Maybe one of the master editors from last years class can also provide some ideas. --Ettrig (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * E's method is practically foolproof. Take only what you need from the original source. Make a list of the facts, let it sit on your desk for a while and then attempt to build a paragraph. The thesaurus is your friend! --Yohmom (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--Merry Beth (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up means warning, so thanks for the warning. Oh and thanks Yohmom for clearing that up.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As pointed out, this article was too similar to other texts that are copyrighted. Although your choice of method is up to you, I will not take part in modifying a text until it no longer violates copyright. If you want my participation, tell me here when you think the article no longer violates copyright. If I then find it doesn't I will read it and make or suggest changes (if needed). If I find it does still violate copyright, I will try to forget that it exists. --Ettrig (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any rudeness or desrespect. We have adjusted the article according to your advice, and I do not see any more instances of plagiarism. We need all the help we can get.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I have no problems with the way you handle this discussion. I just wanted to be very clear that I do not intend to help you to gradually tweak the article until it barely passes the requirement to not violate other peoples copyright. --Ettrig (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

During the winter months, bog turtles hibernate underwater in deep areas of bogs in about 6 to 18 inches of mud. Immature turtles do not hibernate in deep mud until they are 2 to 3 years old. The turtles emerge from hibernation in late March to April and may migrate short distances to feeding and breeding sites.

During the winter months the bogs hibernate underwater: buried in around six to eighteen inches (15.5--46.5 cm) of mud. However, the bog does not hibernate this deep until it reaches the age of two to three years. When the turtle emerges from hibernation (in late March or April) it gathers at feeding and mating sights.

The above is not independent text, it is copying with slight modification. The Wikipedia version is the one where "sites" has been replaced with "sights". --Ettrig (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * , the issue here is plagiarizing and not copyright violation. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection says of its publications "The Wildlife Division grants permission to reprint text, not artwork, provided the DEP Wildlife Division is creditied." So, the Connecticut DEP has been credited. The issue is text so similar that it appears to be substantially the same as the original and not enclosed in quotation marks. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Original Text: ...often spending their entire lives in the wetlands where they were born.
 * Article Text: ...spending almost their entire lives in the wetlands where they were born.''


 * Original Text: The nests are often preyed on by skunks and raccoons.
 * Article Text: Many turtles do not reach this age because they fall prey to raccoons, skunks, foxes and dogs.
 * Comment: So where did the information about foxes and dogs come from? It's not within the article that the fact is cited to. Did you make it up? Is it from another source? Wherever it's origin, it needs to be cited.
 * Oops, found it...although it still seems to incorrectly combine facts about predation of eggs and young and predation of adult turtles. --Yohmom (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped. I'm not sure how you "do not see any more instances of plagiarism." It's blatantly obvious and I strongly suggest you re-evaluate the article before you lose the community's interest. --Yohmom (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your advice Ettrig? I can't make sense of: "One way could be to extract a list of the important words, if possible replaced with synonyms, reshuffle the list, sort the words into categories/headlines, leave it a couple of days to forget the original formulations."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has a good bit on what is and isn't paraphrasing--Yohmom (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't know how else to say, "often spending their entire lives in the wetlands where they were born." It's the best way to communicate the information I want to convey. There are only so many ways to say the same thing without "plagiarizing" from someone else. I'm not saying this act was accidental, I just used their diction because it was superior to anything I could come up with, therefore I cited them as a source that contributed to the makeup of the overall article. Is that still not acceptable? 'Cause if it isn't than I don't know how anybody would get anything done.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Despite whatever justification you may have for the current copied text, it won't fly at GA or when my dad slaps a grade on it at the end of the semester. If you can't paraphrase it, quote it. Try something like: Bog turtles typically remain in the wetlands of their birth. Now, is that so hard?--Yohmom (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The patches of suitable habitat are spread out at distances that are typically longer than the Bog turtle can migrate in one generation.--Ettrig (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

K, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency
The article has several variations of Bog Turtle/bog turtle/Bog turtle. The capitalization needs to be consistent.

In the Physical Attributes section, the measurement conversion templates converts from inches to cm, and then from cm to inches. The H&B section also needs a conversion template. --Yohmom (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a conversion template something more than just a conversion into metric units?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. The conversion issue has since been addressed.--Yohmom (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue with the bame hasn't been resolved, there are a lot of mentions of "the Bog" which to me seems a little informal/slang like. If it is a commonly used name then you should include it in the lead after the latin name and in bold. Smartse (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways...
Should I include information on turtles in general, not just the bog? Like a section that would say that turtles are reptiles, cold-blooded etc.?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not, if people want to find this information they can find it elsewhere on wikipedia. Everything in the article should be specifically related to this species. Smartse (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're right, but I don't think invasive plants are a man made threat, or at least I don't think that it can be proven that they are. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for feedback
You may also want to try Requests for feedback. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So I think I put a small description of the article (along with some of my wants and concerns) on the request for review page or something like that (I wasn't logged in so I can't be sure what it was). Thanks for telling me about that page 'cause I would have never known.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wassup!--Merry Beth (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added Bog turtle to the Requests for feedback page. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Review
There is a review at Requests for feedback/Archive19. The reviewer noted the lack of a taxonomy section. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section
I'm not sure whether this section should stay as it is, normally see also sections are for articles that are closely related to the article but that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Turtle is linked in the lead, reptile and endangered species are in the taxobox, I can't see why threatened species needs to be included as well as this too. I couldn't see a mention to the turtle being an ectotherm, maybe you should include this in the behaviour or description sections.

Good work with the reference formatting by the way, it looks a lot better! Smartse (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, if they are in other places than I will take the section out and put a link to ectothermic animals in the discription section. I believe User:Merry Beth did the reference formatting.  Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't do the reference formatting... I'm not sure who did. ?--Merry Beth (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Links
I have come across a couple links that link to disambiguations, yet they seem like minor points and i question their necessity. The best example i came across was "incubation" (the closest match being specifically avian). Does anyone feel like incubation must be linked?OomnyMalchick (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I found some more mislinks or questionable links: some go to pages with a sentence describing or defining the word but many of these i feel are unneeded. I fixed the links for mate and egg but i still question whether they should remain links. here is a list of links if found out of place. Incubation mate eggs development tussocks let me know how you feel about them. thanks.--OomnyMalchick (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same issue with the reed link in the threats section. I simply removed the link for now, but if someone feels that the link needs to be there then let me know and I will add the link back in.--Merry Beth (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This tool here lists all of the links that go to dab pages. --Yohmom (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe I corrected all the ones that were pointed out. Question...should I go all out with the references like in the lead, or should I keep it moderate like in the rest of the article (we had a discussion in class about how referencing one source for a fact was kind of risky or a little unreliable)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Plural/Singular
"Turtles, like most other reptiles, move for four reasons: feeding, mating, basking in sunlight, and protection. The bog turtle may perform all four movements in one day: traveling to eat food, reproduce with another individual, take in the sun, and burrow from a predator. However, moving for protection is becoming increasingly more common among bog turtles. Bog turtles, when their immediate environment becomes unsuitable, will travel to a new location, perhaps miles away. This is called an extrapopulation movement. They may do this because their former area no longer sustained enough food or mates. Perhaps an inadequate amount of sunlight reached them through the vegetation in the surrounding area or the area no longer contains suitable nesting material. For whatever reason, the bog turtle may perform..."
 * Why are you switching from singular to plural to singular to plural (rinse and repeat)? This is done several times in the entry. Try to keep it consistent throughout the article, or at least the paragraph. --Yohmom (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to the Croatan team for GA pass! We have had some discrepancies. But you have worked diligently and I trust Sasata has checked all aspects thoroughly. --Ettrig (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job guys Strombollii (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you all for all of your help!--Merry Beth (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you everybody! I'm glad we could make this happen.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ettrig, what else should we correct? We are hoping to get the article to FA eventually.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Towards FAC
Here are some suggestions for those wanting to push the article towards FAC: Good luck, and feel free to drop me a line if you'd like assistance with any any these. Sasata (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅range map... Kaldari has posted some easy instructions to make one if you have access to Photoshop.
 * ✅ images need alternative text
 * article needs to make more use of the relevant scholarly literature. Due to increases in conservation efforts, there's been quite a bit of research published in recent years, and this would have to be summarized in the article to meet the "comprehensive" and "well-researched" criteria.
 * ✅as a final step, get the help of a copyeditor to make the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".


 * Ok, me and my group will work on these over the next couple of days, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have several questions about alternative text: the alternative text article says it is used to help people understand the image if they are unable to see it, but why wouldn't somebody be able to see it?  Also, where would the alt text go? In the caption or in a designated section within the article?  Also, I went to Kaldari's page and politely asked how I would make a dist map without photoshop.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone might not be able to see it, for example, if they were blind. Blind or visually-impaired users can use special software that reads the text for them, as well as alternative text that describe images on a page. To add alt text in the taxobox, use "image_alt = " as one of the parameters. To use it in one of the article images, use "|alt = ". To make this easier, I added these parameters to images, you just have to fill in the text now. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for clearing that up and putting the "|alt=" in all the places needed. I added alt text to the images: I hope it's all helpful and relevant.  I am currently in conversations with Kaldari about a distribution map (you can check the bottom of my talk page to see what has been said).  Other questions: Are the sections within the article in a logical order?  Are there FA quidelines for animal articles that say where certain sections should be?  Are we missing any sections or information (other than what needs to be added from scholarly literature)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no animal article-specific guidelines, but it would be a good idea to look at similar FACs for inspiration, and to get a sense of the level of detail and research that's required. Check out Australian Green Tree Frog (probably a poor example, as references are thin and the FAC standards has risen since that article was promoted), Blue iguana, Cane toad, and Komodo dragon. Regarding this article, you might want to consider putting the taxonomy section right after the lead, and, depending on what you're able to dig up with further research, an ecology section that may or may not be a part of the current "Habitat and distribution" section. Something about evolution or fossil records would be good too, if you can find some info. Sasata (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems that in the other articles the order is something like: Lead, taxonomy, description, distribution, behavior, reproduction, and than conservation efforts (if the animal is threatened or the like). I think we will rearrange the articles subsections so that it follows this general guideline.  What infomration should I be looking for regarding an ecology section.  We went into some detail on what it requires and doesn't require from its habitat... would we talk about the expected temperature, prey items, rainfall, and things like that in further detail?  And as for fossil records we will literally have to do some digging, but I guarantee it will get done.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt-text needs to be re-written to comply with WP: ALTTEXT. Strombollii (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed up the wording significantly for each image. I know the alt-text is supposed do describe the image to people who can't see it, but I also wanted to add some information as well, I hoped I fixed it appropriatelly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing and approaching the wiki-gods of copy-editing

 * Make sure that all numbers are spelled out where appropriate. ✅
 * The use (or lack of use) of the oxford comma should be consistent when copy-editing.✅
 * In the lead, many of the sentences begin with "(noun) is," which is very repetitive. ✅
 * The same issue applies for:
 * The first paragraph under "Description" seems like it is always beginning with "the (noun)." ✅
 * "Sexual Dimorphism" has the same problem as "Description." ✅
 * The first paragraph under "Northern & Southern Ranges" repeats "north," "south," and "community." ✅

Try to take care of stuff like this before finding someone to check the article. Malleus Fatuorum and Awadewit are both excellent copy-editors, and both were willing to help out with my article last year. Asking them nicely or asking them very nicely couldn't hurt.--Yohmom (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of places in the article (ex: 1st p in "threats" section) where it switches between the singular (bog turtle/it)and plural (turtles/they). ✅
 * Both male and female bog turtles reach sexual maturity at anywhere between 4 to 10 years of age." Why is this under the "Longevity" section and not "Reproduction?" ✅
 * You don't have to x out things I haven't gotten to yet.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for spelling out numbers, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be done if the number is under 10, but I am unsure of how to do it when the number is part of a conversion. I try spelling it out like within the brackets and it goes really psycho.  And also, should I spell out decimals, like "1.28 hectares?" 'cause it's under 10, but it seems like it would be unhelpful and even difficult to understand.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both common sense and the manual of style dictate that decimals are not spelled out. One and twenty eight hundredths hectares is absolutely unnecessary. Strombollii (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ok, I kind of knew that...just asking. but really, what would I do about spelling out numbers within the conversion template?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And also, about the oxford comma (or serial comma), the article says there are different acceptable ways to use it. Such as, if there were a list it could read either: this, this, and this (or) this, this and this.  And both would be right.  I will scan the article for lists and correct what needs correction.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You could convert via google and write in the numbers. Or you could just not spell them out... I don't think anyone would object to having parenthetical numbers not spelled out (of course, they might... have you looked at the MOS?). Or have you looked at other FA articles to see what they've done? Strombollii (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yohmom just asked me to spell out the numbers and most are in the imperial conversion, the others are a product of google.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop stressing. Numbers look fine as of now. Issue was added to the list more as an example to double check the article for MOS consistency before requesting a "legit" copy-edit.--Yohmom (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some other things we need to take care of before the copyedit by a wikigod are Sasata's suggestions above, all of which make my brain hurt, any advice? (advice always makes a nice Christmas present!)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Comma
Some examples of lists I came across:
 * "mud turtle, marsh turtle, yellowhead, and snapper."
 * "a bright yellow, orange, or red spot"
 * "Vermont, New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania."
 * "Rushes, tussock sedge, cattails, jewelweed, sphagnum, and various native true grasses"
 * "states including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee"
 * "in dense underbrush, underwater, or buried"
 * "mammals including skunks, foxes, dogs, and raccoons."

I think these follow the oxford comma rules, right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Add a comma after Georgia (5th) for consistency. Other than that, it looks good from here.--Yohmom (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will, but those were only a couple of examples, is everything elso okay as far as the oxford comma guidelines?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If "everything" looks like the above, then yep. I'll swing by in a day or so, when I have more time, to really check the comma thing out. If I see anything I'll just change it myself. Probably won't have to though, looks like you get the point. --Yohmom (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Size
According to the Wiki-article,"the full-grown male bog turtle measures 3 to 4 inches (7.6 to 10 cm) in length, while the adult female is typically larger at 4 to 5 inches (10 to 13 cm)." The source linked to this statement gives different numbers. ??? --Yohmom (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I believe I corrected that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on GA, guys Strombollii (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, heard you before (J.K.), thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
What should we do now as far as spelling out the numbers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the numbers are oll korrect. i went through with number rules next to me and it seems that the only times when we might write out a number, it is closely linked with another number above ten. The rules suggested that we use numerals for both in such a case to maintain consistency.--OomnyMalchick (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, numbers look fine.--Yohmom (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but who should copy-edit it now that we are on the cusp of having a distribution map?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd still recommend the same two people that I mentioned in the "Copy-editing and approaching the wiki-gods of copy-editing" section...--Yohmom (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Towards FAC (part deux)
NYMFan69-86 asked me to take a look through this article and help get it ready for FAC. As I already said to him(?), FAC is quite a step up from GA, so there will still be some work to do. I propose to look at the article as an FA reviewer would, so that it's as ready as it can be when you do decide to nominate it. I'll use this section for raising any issues I come across that aren't easily fixed MoS or copyediting things.


 * Alt text
 * ✅The image in the infobox needs to have alt text.
 * Is this the same as the taxobox? Because this does have some alt text...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this image, right at the start of the article. I can't see any alt text for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, it was in the wrong spot (I just moved it). Here's what it says: "This is a drawing of the bog turtle in several orientations, side and bottom.  These views show both the belly of the bog turtle (the plastron) and the destinct blotch on the side of the neck."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅Some of the alt texts miss the point. For example: "Bog turtle live in sunny wetlands with short plants or grasses very, a landscape portrayed in this image. These areas are typically without large trees as they may disrupt the ability of sunlight to reach the ground." If I were visually impaired this would tell me very little more than the caption told me, if anything. The best way to think about this is to imagine that you're trying to explain the image to someone you're speaking to on the phone. For instance: "Flat expanse of brown grassland containing several small pools of water under a dark blue sky dotted with dark gray clouds." I'm not saying that's perfect, but it paints a picture for the reader who can't see the picture.
 * Actually, I was going to replace the wetland picture with one being discussed at the bottom of this page as soon as we've was decided on one or the other. Right now I will fix the others so that it matches the intended purpose of alt text.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reworded all of them, with exception to the one of the wetland, so that they would be better served to assist a blind person or someone who otherwise isn't able to see the image.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs a bit of work to better summarise the article—it says nothing about reproduction or behavior for instance—and focuses too much on the differences betwen the three kinds of rather similar looking turtles.
 * Lead
 * I feel like I only slightly addressed this concern, so I'll leave it unchecked.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead's best left until the end, when the rest of the article's done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Similar species
 * ✅"One way to distinguish a bog turtle from any other turtle species is to look for the distinctively colored blotch on its neck." You need to be careful to maintain an encyclopedic tone, and remember that wikipedia isn't a "how to" manual. In other words, don't tell the reader how to distinguish between a bog turtle and any other species, simply describe the differences.


 * Distribution and habitat
 * ✅"... as well as some trees shrubs such as willows...". What are "trees shrubs"?
 * I don't know what it is or who put it there, but I changed it to "trees and shrubs such as..." which I think is correct.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Northern and southern ranges
 * ✅"The northern and southern bog turtle populations are separated by a 250-mile (400 km) gap that exists over much of Virginia." I can't quite get my head round this. There's a gap over much of Virginia? How do the residents cope?
 * Well, I don't know if the can...I changed it to: "The northern and southern bog turtle populations are separated by a 250-mile (400 km) gap that exists over much of Virginia (gap here refers to an area that lacks bog turtle colonies)[17]. BTW, where do you stand on the whole colony vs. population vs. community debate that occured on this page?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reproduction
 * ✅"During the courtship ritual, the male turtle gently bite and nudge the female turtle’s heads." How many heads does a female have? :lol: What it should say, of course is either "... the male turtle gently bites and nudges the female turtle's head", or "... the male turtles gently bite and nudge the female turtles' heads".


 * ✅"However, female bog turtles do not breed every year, another reason for population depletion." I don't think this quite follows. Bog turtles have presumably never bred every year, but their population was stable in the past.
 * How about something like this: "However, female bog turtles do not breed every year, meaning it will be difficult for the bog turtle's population to rebound."?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅"Also, a large percentage of bog turtle eggs are infertile and therefore do not survive." The eggs certainly survive, they just don't hatch.


 * Threats
 * ✅"The bog turtle is also threatened by the invasion of non-native plants into their habitat". This doesn't quite work: "The bog turtle ... their ...". Need to match the subject and pronoun, as in "Bog turtles are also threatened ..." or "The bog turtle is also threatened ... its habitat".
 * I actually had an extensive conversation with Yohmom about pronoun agreement, I guess I missed this one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Citations--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅Where there are multiple inline citations one after the other they should be listed in ascending order. Look at the last paragragh of Sexual dimorphism, for instance, which lists them as [10][7][12], instead of the correct [7][10][12].
 * I caught all of them except the [9][2][5][10] in the description section, which when I move the [2] to the front just changes their numbers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The same book is listed several times in the References section when different pages are being referred to. It's best to separate the citation from its source to avoid having to do this. I'll show you what I mean by doing the Bloomer book.
 * References are the hardest thing to me, I need major help condensing this one. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you named the bloomer ref, I tried to do it with the Smith one but I cannot format it correctly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I added several highly used references to the bibliography but I can't for the life of me name the references or condense the list. Can you help me?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That Smith paper seems like a good resource. Pretty much everyone finds citations difficult at first, but they really are crucial. Take a look at what I've done with citation #40, and se if that helps. Basically, what you're doing in the Notes section is telling the reader what page(s) the information you're attributing to, for instance Smith, can be found in the article/book/published work. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope i'm not being obnoxious with my ✅ marks, because I had another conversation with Yohmom about that (btw, I am male).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ is fine with me, whatever you find easiest to keep track of what's been done and what hasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, i'm not sure if some of my checks are merited, but the concerns that do indeed have a check I feel have been addressed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have no fear, I'll be looking at what you've done to see if I agree. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WIAFA criteria 1(b) and 1(c)
If I were reviewing this article as a FAC for WIAFA criteria 1(b) (comprehensive) and 1(c) (well-researched), I would question why the following sources weren't used: Sasata (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Title: GLYPTEMYS MUHLENBERGII (Bog Turtle). LONGEVITY.
 * Author(s): Gress, George C.
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 40   Issue: 3   Pages: 334-335   Published: SEP 2009


 * Title: APPLICATION OF THIN-PLATE SPLINE TRANSFORMATIONS TO FINITE ELEMENT MODELS, OR, HOW TO TURN A BOG TURTLE INTO A SPOTTED TURTLE TO ANALYZE BOTH
 * Author(s): Stayton, CT
 * Source: EVOLUTION  Volume: 63   Issue: 5   Pages: 1348-1355   Published: 2009
 * Not to be rude, but this one seem to be unhelpful because it was about something so fringe...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Title: Role of trapping in detection of a small bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) population
 * Author(s): Somers, AB; Mansfield-Jones, J
 * Source: CHELONIAN CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY  Volume: 7   Issue: 1   Pages: 149-155   Published: 2008


 * Title: A prehistoric record of Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) in central New York
 * Author(s): Madrigal, TC
 * Source: NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST  Volume: 15   Issue: 2   Pages: 309-312   Published: 2008
 * This one offers more of the same...(I remember you saying you thought a section on prehistoric fossil records would be more than appropriate, but now I just don't see it fitting in or having enough information in it...unless I accessed the wrong URL:)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Title: In stream, streamside, and under stream bank movements of a bog turtle, Glyptemys muhlenbergii
 * Author(s): Somers, AB; Mansfield-Jones, J; Braswell, J
 * Source: CHELONIAN CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY  Volume: 6   Issue: 2   Pages: 286-288   Published: 2007


 * Title: The effects of livestock grazing on the bog turtle [Glyptemys (= Clemmys) muhlenbergii]
 * Author(s): Tesauro, J; Ehrenfeld, D
 * Source: HERPETOLOGICA  Volume: 63   Pages: 293-300   Published: 2007


 * Title: Unexpectedly low genetic divergences among populations of the threatened bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii)
 * Author(s): Rosenbaum, PA; Robertson, JM; Zamudio, KR
 * Source: CONSERVATION GENETICS  Volume: 8   Issue: 2   Pages: 331-342   Published: APR 2007


 * Title: Bacterial pneumonia in free-ranging bog turtles, Glyptemys muhlenbergii, from North Carolina and Virginia
 * Author(s): Carter, Shawn L.; Horne, Brian D.; Herman, Dennis W., et al.
 * Source: Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science  Volume: 121   Issue: 4   Pages: 170-173   Published: WIN 2005
 * I accessed this, ,and it seemed a little too first-hand.  It had some O.K. information, but it was much too specific, seeming to revolve on one or two studies done.  I will check some of the other sources and see what they are all about.  I feel if we add a conservation and endangerment section that will be all the additional information we need, apart from what we find from some other really helpful PDFs, including the one I used when working with the hibernation subsection recently.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Title: Glyptemys (= Clemmys) Muhlenbergii (Bog turtle). Fecundity.
 * Author(s): Warner, James L.
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 36   Issue: 3   Pages: 310-311   Published: SEP 2005


 * Title: Glyptemys (Clemmys) muhlenbergii (bog turtle). Predation.
 * Author(s): Warner, James L.
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 36   Issue: 2   Pages: 167   Published: JUN 2005


 * Title: Glyptemys (=clemmys) muhlenbergii (bog turtle).
 * Author(s): Herman, Dennis W.; Ward, Tonya; Williams, Lori A.
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 36   Issue: 1   Pages: 77   Published: March 2005


 * Title: Conservation of microsatellite DNA flanking sequence across 13 Emydid genera assayed with novel bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) loci
 * Author(s): King, TL; Julian, SE
 * Source: CONSERVATION GENETICS  Volume: 5   Issue: 5   Pages: 719-725   Published: 2004


 * Title: Glyptemys muhlenbergii (bog turtle). Diet.
 * Author(s): Williams, Lori A.
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 35   Issue: 3   Pages: 265   Published: September 2004


 * Title: Clemmys (=Glyptemys) muhlenbergii (bog turtle). USA: North Carolina.
 * Author(s): Herman, Dennis W.; Campbell, David; Chapell, Eric
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 34   Issue: 3   Pages: 260   Published: September 2003


 * Title: Glyptemys (=Clemmys) muhlenbergii (bog turtle). Abnormal coloration.
 * Author(s): Moskowitz, David; Kovacs, Michael; Tesauro, Jason
 * Source: Herpetological Review  Volume: 34   Issue: 3   Pages: 240   Published: September 2003
 * Thank you for your insights. An interesting perspective. I've not seen in the past; criticism of FA status based on failure to use any particular reference. If there is a specific bit of information essential to the article that is absent - limited to one of these very specific references - then I would agree. I'm fairly certain that primary sources; are not an FA requirement (we may need a second opinion on that). However, I will encourage my students to attempt to access these reference and if there is any general information (?Conservation of microsatellite DNA flanking sequence across 13 Emydid genera assayed with novel bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) loci ?)  suitable for an encyclopedic article and relevant to the topic I will encourage them to include it.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's expected that editors have done a thorough search of the literature, and used the most reliable and authoritative sources. It may well be that none of the papers above add significant information, in which case that's why they're not used. On the other hand ...


 * One or two of the sources used might have trouble being considered reliable at FAC as well. I'm thinking particularly of #19, to the Reptile Channel. If the best quality sources aren't used that's going to raise some objections. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The use of any of these references are not specifically required for FA status, but they do represent a fairly complete survey of recent scholarly research on the topic, and (if available) should at least be checked out to see if they contain any interesting or relevant information that could be used to improve the article. Typically these primary sources contain an introductory section that discusses the topic in a general way, and in my experience at least, just these sections alone often contain useful tidbits of information. For example, that microsatellite DNA paper could be used to cite a general statement like "Molecular DNA techniques are being used to help understand the genetic diversity of populations of bog turtles, in an effort to develop guidelines for their conservation." This would go well in a section on Conservation (and there should be one in the article, imo), and would help convince reviewers that the "well-researched" criterion has been met. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2010(UTC)
 * I too would prefer even more references and even more research; I misunderstood you to imply that because these specific reference were absent - the article was deficient. My apologies. You are both quite correct about a need to expand on the research component. That is very much an intended outcome of this project - the ability to scrutinize relevant resources from internet garbage. Google and grab is what high school students do. We need to break that cycle before this is over. It is also true that upgrading the resources to more scholarly sources would serve to provide credibility to the article. Not to make excuses - I attempted to access your list and unfortunately was limited to abstracts at best; which were limited to very complex overviews on some very focused research. I will insist that my students attempt to access all of them in hopes of linking the more general info in the bog turtle article to the more reputable sources. I did find one site from you list that allowed me to springboard to some articles that were more applicable to a general overview of the turtle. That is how the internet works - bounce around and the data is out there somewhere. Did you know that a pair of bog turtles sell on the black market for $2,000.00 dollars! Geez. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree getting most of those will be hard without access to a university library, but no-one said it would be easy :) The students are more than welcome to ask for help. (p.s. $2000?? I wouldn't pay more than a quarter of that, no matter how hungry I was... ;) Sasata (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...me and my partners will consider both the unique and relevant information in each of these potential sources (p.s. is the infobox the same as the taxobox?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch this discussion post when I searched for articles to include in my review of this article for User:NYMFan69-86. I managed to track down a lot of the pdf's for these articles. The article still has a lot of work for FA status - but it reads well and it is certainly on its way. Great job!!!Thompsma (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source to check out: "Turtles of the United States and Canada" By Carl H. Ernst, Jeffrey E. Lovich; the whole chapter on bog turtles on available on Google Books. It would be a good idea to compare the coverage of the chapter with that of this article, and use the book to help fill gaps in coverage. Sasata (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a great book, thank you. How exactly would I go about citing it?  Would I cite the book itself, or the website I was a ble to view it from?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, just copy/paste this into the article (I just put the ISBN into this handy citation maker). Sasata (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already cited the book in the article.Thompsma (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot you guys.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing ADW
As this article is intended as a future FA, I think it would be preferable for all citations to Animal Diversity Web to be replaced. I don't know enough about this species to testify as to the accuracy of the ADW entry, but I know the House Sparrow entry to be patently inaccurate. The ADW is, as its disclaimer states, "an educational resource written largely by and for college students", and, while being considered acceptable for many articles, may not be a most reliable reference for good or featured articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did something to make it invalid. Help?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what did you mean by the last statement? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, a Bot came and "rescued an orphaned ref" which was disrupted or made invalid by me. We are working on finding other sorces for the information previously found on ADW.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks matter
Reference 16 (Shiels) is credible...it just doesn't really seem that way at first glance. The PDF file on the site is the exact same article, but it looks 100x better. (It doesn't have that snot-colored background and the pictures are much prettier!) Why not link to the PDF instead?--Yohmom (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took care of that but it gave rise to several other problems. Ref 24 is now orphaned, and I need major help condensing the reference list.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article pdf access
I often go to author websites and find that they post pdf's of their publications. You can visit Dr. Lovich's website, for example, and access his publications on bog turtles. If anyone needs help finding pdf's for the other articles - let me know and I can help you out.Thompsma (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks a lot for the link and citation fixes!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Distribution map
I realize it is difficult to come up with distribution maps - and the map in this article looks nice. However, it is frustrating to us Canadians when Americans put maps together that cut off our country as though nothing exists here. This is an odd cultural phenomenon - because we are connected and this is especially true when it comes to the distributions of plants and animals that don't follow borders. Is there a way to have this map re-drafted with the distribution in Canada shown?Thompsma (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect Canada (Oh, Canada...), but none of my references mention a bog turtle distribution in Canada...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great to know! Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the assumption is still there by the reader; "That the map only shows the US distribution"; especially when the turtle's range is on the border. The article would be better served by extending the map north to include that country north of us.... not Mexico ... you know ...the other one.--JimmyButler (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, since I don't have photo-shop, I left a pleasant request at the bottom of this page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could just be written in the text that it has a US only distribution?Thompsma (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I'll do that for now than see what the lab comes up with.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How's something like that?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went in and changed it one more time.Thompsma (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks great, thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New Section On Endangerment
Apart from needing some more information, how does the new section look?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the only turtle protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and is considered threatened at the federal level and endangered in some states. Could we get a citation for that - I looked over the Federal List and saw several turtles?--JimmyButler (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you are at it, maybe you could rephrase this to a little more global perspective. As it is now written it seems to assume that USA is a given context. In a way it is, because the turtle is endemic to USA territory. But still, I think it would be nice to us foreigners if you specified this as a law of USA. --Ettrig (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Butler, you're talking about the sentence in the lead right? We put this information in other places in the article where they are cited, like this...
 * Threats: "The bog turtle is the only turtle protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act,[6] and is considered threatened (as of November 4, 1997) at the federal level,[9] and in the following states..."
 * Protective Legislation: "The bog turtle is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act after becoming a federally endangered species in 1973. [6] Therefore, it is illegal to "sell, trade, barter, possess, import, export, catch, take, or kill" a bog turtle.[16]"
 * If you feel it is needs citation in the lead I will surely put it there. Ettrig, I will address your concern right now because it hasn't even occurred to me to do what you are saying.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ettrig, what I did was make it overly clear in the lead that I am discussing United States Federal Laws...I left the other instances the way they were because I felt it would be a little redundant to go through and say U.S. Federal Endangered Species Act in all those cases. Is that okay as is?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still get a feeling that this text assumes USA as a given context, that it is written by (a fact) and for (against Wikipedia principles) people in USA. But I cannot really say there is a fault now. I think the legal aspect currently gets too much space in the lead. Compare percentages in lead and main text. Better leave that till the finishing work though.
 * Okay, you're right. It still feels a little biased.  The lead is to be worked on last, but I will make edits to gear this article more to a global perspective.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)