Talk:Galápagos tortoise/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ucucha 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Overall, a great article, but there are some problems—including those listed above, and a few more I'll come to later—that will need to be solved before this can be a GA. Ucucha 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead goes around from singular to plural ("The Galápagos tortoise ... is .... They are ..."); that should be consistent.
 * The section on "Taxonomy and phylogeny" goes back and forth between information on the subspecies (internal taxonomy) and the relationships of the species (external taxonomy); it would be clearer if you could separate those subjects.
 * "Significant revisions to the taxonomy from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in future may resolve this issue."—the ICZN does not rule on taxonomy, only on nomenclature.
 * "a process similar to a rafting event"—why not just a rafting event?
 * "making the former up to three times heavier"—even taking the lowest figures for females and the highest for males, this is not true.
 * Numerous journal citations are missing volume and page numbers.
 * Still a few left (current refs. 24, 26, 55, 59, 65

Many thanks for the constructive feedback, will be resolving as much as possible soon. Re: 'rafting event', I was trying to draw the distinction that the tortoises do not require a 'raft' of branches or buoyant material, because they are able to float unaided. Minglex (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the issue with "rafting event" illustrates a problem that occurs a few times (for example, also with the piece about the subgenus): you first introduce something the meaning of which is not very clear, and then a few sentences later it is explained (in this case, where it says the tortoise is buoyant). It's better to have that closer together. Ucucha 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have tried to rephrase these sections in a less awkward manner. Minglex (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The references are somewhat chaotic. While the GA criteria don't explicitly cover many of the problems I'll list, they do hinder verifiability (in some places) and generally make the article look untidy. (Ref. numbers as of this version.) Ucucha 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Further reading": Darwin's book is oddly formatted, with the link appearing twice, and the linked parenthesis.
 * Refs. 2 and 58 are both PhD theses, but formatted very differently.
 * Refs. 3 and 49 are identical. The publisher is italicized, as in most or all other refs.; I don't think I've ever seen that before.
 * Refs. 4 and 61 are identical.
 * Ref. 5 is rather terse, and could do with a link to the relevant article of the 1911 EB. However, a more recent source would be preferable.
 * Ref. 6: what is the access date? Also, it seems better not to link the publisher.
 * Ref. 7: title given doesn't correspond to the title of the linked page. Also, what is the access date and what makes this page a reliable source? Cf. the oddly formatted ref. 74.
 * Ref. 8: accessdate? The text of the ref. does not give the title of the linked page. Not an ideal reliable source either. Same page is cited in ref. 46.
 * Ref. 9: more conventional to link the title, not just have a [2]. Why the "pp." when only one page is cited?
 * Ref. 10: accessdate? And again, preferable to link the title.
 * Ref. 11: is that a reliable source? Why the "pp."? What is the ISBN?
 * Ref. 12: almost certainly available online, please link. (This probably goes for many other journal sources cited.)
 * Ref. 13: I can't find 1974a, so why the "b"? (Also ref. 67.)
 * Ref. 14: journal titles should mostly not be abbreviated (and in any case, the article is currently inconsistent).
 * Ref. 16: what is the page cited?
 * Compare refs. 17 and 18 for a few examples of inconsistency. Also, refs. 17 and 29 as well as 18, 25, 31, and 32 are the same.
 * Ref. 20: what is the page cited? And the ISBN?
 * Refs. 27, 28, and 40 are the same. (Several other duplicate references; I am not listing them all.)
 * Ref. 36 refers to the same page as ref. 1.
 * Ref. 38 needs some more information.
 * Ref. 39 has "pp.", but doesn't actually mention a page. Also, since it cites Darwin (1845), that work shouldn't be under "Further reading", which is only for works that haven't been cited. Same with refs. 68, 69, and 72.
 * Ref. 53: page reference?
 * Ref. 56: this is a bare URL, and should have the proper information added (title, author, etc.).
 * Ref. 62: are MacFarland and Reeder different people?
 * Ref. 63: page reference, ISBN?
 * Ref. 81: needs better formatting, date, author.
 * Ref. 82: needs better formatting.


 * Thanks, will get round to tidying up the references in the next few days hopefully. Minglex (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have hyperlinked to online versions of articles where possible, and I've standardised the formatting of the references now.Minglex (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

More
The article is shaping up pretty good; I have left some citation needed tags that need to be addressed. And a few more issues: Ucucha 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the same as your ref to Marquez (1988, Comportamiento de Apareamiento al Azar en tortugas gigantes. Juveniles en cautiverio el las Islas Galápagos)?
 * "volcanos"—the plural would be volcanoes in English, or is this meant to be a Spanish word?
 * "Galapágos tortoises are the only lineage of giant tortoise exhibiting two different types of shell shape" and "There is no saddleback/domed dualism, as tortoises can be of intermediate type with characteristics of both"—an apparent contradiction.
 * "adult males weigh an average of 272 - 317 kg"—that looks like a range, not an average.
 * "They vocalise when struggling to right themselves, during aggressive encounters, hissing when startled into withdrawing into their shells, and 'rhythmic groans' from males during mating"—this sentence doesn't make sense grammatically; some parts of the lists are the sounds made and others are the situations when the sounds are made.
 * Images:
 * File:GNigrita.jpg is "all rights reserved" on Flickr.
 * File:Lonseome_george.jpg doesn't match the source photo on Flickr.
 * Ucucha 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Must have got confused with too many tabs open when scouting for images on Flickr. Changed both now.Minglex (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead contains several facts that are not in the body of the article (the origin of the name "Galápagos", the tortoises' effect on Darwin's theories); per WP:LEAD, which is part of the GA criteria, this should be corrected.
 * May take a little while, will see to it soon.Minglex (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done as much as I can with the historical relation to Darwin. Re: The naming of the islands, I can't find anything else interesting to write about it nor a place where it could sit comfortably in the body. Apart from this, all the references from the lead have been relocated to where the facts appear in the body of the article.Minglex (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. As the article has been edited so extensively, I am going over the entire text again to check for clarity and other problems. Ucucha 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tortoise numbers have fallen dramatically due to human disturbance from over 250,000 when first discovered to 20,000 now"—I think it would be better to say the actual time (16th century, I believe) instead of "when first discovered" (both in the lead and in the "Human disturbances" section).
 * Done. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Duméril and Bibron publish in 1834 (article text) or 1824 (taxobox)?
 * The Taxobox is by Quoy and Gaimard, will finish the outstanding taxonomy soon though. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. Ucucha 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to find a place to link to the articles on Indian Ocean giant tortoises somewhere in the first paragraph of "External taxonomy".
 * The closest is to the list of Giant tortoises. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Larger islands with humid (mesic) highlands over 800 m in elevation, such as Santa Cruz and the Volcán Alcedo on Isabela, have abundant vegetation near the ground"—Alcedo is not an island. Not sure how to fix this.
 * Removed Alcedo, not essential info anyway. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "collections [of tortoises] from two of the islands"—why the "of tortoises"? He may well also have mingled the other collections. The islands also have different species of rice rats, for example.
 * Fixed. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "This may have been done because Darwin only reported seeing tortoises on San Cristóbal..." (I rewrote this sentence). It seems the refs only support the fact that Darwin saw tortoises on these islands, not the inference being drawn.
 * There are some remaining citation needed tags.
 * Will find page reference for this. It appears in Nicholls. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article seems overly fond of quotes from Darwin, even when they add little. I removed some, but there are probably more that can go.
 * I like the historical perspective, but I see what you mean. Trim away as you like. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 1936 the Ecuadorian government listed the giant tortoise as a protected species, and then in 1959, when it declared all uninhabited areas in the Galápagos to be a National Park . and established the Charles Darwin Foundation."—confused sentence
 * Fixed. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "United States Public Law 91-135 (1969) automatically prohibited the importation of Galápagos tortoises into the U.S. as their export was declared illegal"—I'm not sure what to make of the point about "export".
 * Reworded. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, will address these points soon.Minglex (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the review close to being wrapped up? There haven't been any comments here from either side in a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try to make a final push this week.Minglex (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still some citation needed tags that need to be taken care of. Ucucha 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. (got tired of still seeing this up so I fixed what was left) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems everything has been fixed; I will pass the article now. Congratulations. Ucucha 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for your time Ucucha, it's been a pleasure. Minglex (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)