Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, here goes. Basically, this is a very well-written article, and I don't see it needing much work before reaching GA. A few things did catch my eye, however: --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The first thing I noticed is that the lead will need a little work. It is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, which means that it should not contain anything that isn't repeated later on. That means there isn't normally any need for citations in the lead.


 * I rewrote the introduction. I believe the thought progression is easier to understand now.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I didn't see anything different from what I did yesterday. I expanded the intro and think it provides a pretty good summary of the article.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the lead based off of the bog turtle, there's probably more to include though. The lead shouldn't just be a list of facts, it should have some flow to it.  Think about that if you decide to add more information to it.  Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done For consistency with other articles, it's probably best to cite the IUCN directly, using "status_ref = " in the taxobox, ("")


 * Check that scientific names below the family level are in italics, even in the references; Sargassum is a genus, for instance, and should be in italics; Spirorchiidae is a famiy, and should not.
 * I put sargassum in italics and capitalized it. Since it is the genus, should it be capitalized in every instance as well?--TimHAllstr (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy: you state that the name Caretta caretta "prevailed". I am sure there is more to it than that. Under the ICZN, the epithet "caretta" would have to be used, whatever genus was in use. Without seeing the full list of synonyms, it is difficult to say more. Could they be included as a footnote? Then it might be clearer whether the synonyms are repeated descriptions of the same species by different authors (perhaps believing that their local populations were different), or different combinations of the same epithet in different genera, or a combination of the two. Whichever it is, the reasons for the large number of synonyms should probably be mentioned.


 * Synonyms have been included. Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Bog turtle article, taxonomic synonyms were placed in the taxobox (so i'm not sure a footnote would be best). A comprehensive list would be nice, if it could be found, which may not be the case.  If the changes do indeed have a larger reason behind them, than it should be stated, but again, the sources may not say this (or perhaps there is no real reason).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below for the full synonymy. The article that it came from may also be useful for other parts of this article. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we have addressed all the taxonomic concerns now. Please correct me if I am wrong.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I made sure that it was clear that Linnaeus was the first to give a scientific name.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Following on from that, strictly speaking, Linnaeus was not the first to name the loggerhead, but the first to give the loggerhead a valid scientific name, according to the rules agreed (much later) by the ICZN. In the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (the starting point for zoological nomenclature), for instance, he cites two earlier names: "Gron. mus. s. p. 85. n. 69. Testudo pedibus natatoriis, unguibus acuminatus binis." and "Brown. jam. 465. Testudo unguibus utrinque binis acutis, squamis dorsi quinque gibbis."


 * In the third paragraph of "Distribution", Western Australia and Southern Africa are mentioned as additional sites, but Africa (Mozambique to S. Africa) has already been mentioned.
 * Fixed Got rid of the redundant info.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Avoid phrases like "In fact," ("Distribution", fifth paragraph).
 * Done I fixed this occurence. I will check for additional issues--TimHAllstr (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In "Evolutionary history", you say that it "is a descendent of the ancient species Cheloniidae". While it is true that a single species was the ancestor of all Cheloniidae, you cannot call Cheloniidae a species. I can't think of a simple fix for this.
 * The sea turtle article states that Cheloniidae is a superfamily, so I stated that it's descended from the ancient superfamily.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anatomy and morphology: "several adaptations" are mentioned, but only one is presented.
 * Fixed Made singular.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Spelling: currently, there is a mixture of American English and British English (or Commonwealth English) spellings ("labeling", "behavior"; "molluscs", "centimetres").
 * Done I changed all the spelling to American English.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The sections on behaviour and early life seem rather devoid of links. Some likely targets would include lethargy, Territory (animal), magnetite, animal migration, etc.
 * --Kaker42 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Loggerheads mature sexually at around age 35 ... Loggerheads that reach adulthood typically live more than 30 years, and often live past 50 years." I misunderstood this sentence; the "50 years" refers to longevity after maturity, meaning a full life span of 85 years, doesn't it? I think that's the figure one would expect to read (total lifespan), rather than expecting the reader to do the sums. The first part is also partly contradicted by the later paragraph in which South African females start to reproduce from 17–30 years old.


 * I imagine this sentence has been accidentally altered: "Such damage can require weeks to heal cause the male to dismount."
 * done--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that the section on diet is so short. I would expect a lot of detail to be known about what loggerheads eat.
 * I have expanded this section, including more prey and mechanisms of feeding.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section on raccoon fencing needs to be referenced.


 * done References: Since you're using the two-list method of referencing, make sure that the items are in alphabetical order in the second list. I can also see no need to use all capitals in titles, so it would be best to change these to title case or sentence case. Finally, I think it would look better with the first list being split into two or three columns, but that's only a personal preference.
 * I alphabetized the references and tried to put the notes into columns. I'm not sure what's wrong but they don't display in columns...  Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Synonymy
The following synonyms are taken from Dodd (1988), which is the latest source used by Conant et al. (2009) for their claim of 35 synonyms. The species Caretta caretta and the genus Caretta are different taxa, even if they are coterminous, so they have separate synonymies. I don't think Dodd explicitly discusses the reasons for the synonymy (but since the text of that PDF isn't searchable, I can't be sure).

Species synonymy
So it should be something like this:
 * Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758)
 * Testudo Caretta Linnaeus, 1758
 * Testudo Cephalo Schneider, 1783
 * Testudo nasicornis Lacépède, 1788
 * Testudo Caouana Lacépède, 1788
 * Chelone caretta Brongniart, 1805
 * Chelonia Caouanna Schweigger, 1812
 * Caretta nasuta Rafinesque, 1814
 * Chelonia cavanna Oken, 1816
 * Caretta atra Merrem, 1820
 * Caretta Cephalo Merrem, 1820
 * Caretta nasicornis Merrem, 1820
 * Chelonia caretta Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828
 * Testudo Corianna Gray, 1831
 * Chelonia pelasgorum Valenciennes in Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833
 * Chelonia cephalo Gray, 1829
 * Chelonia (Caretta) cephalo Lesson in Bélanger, 1834
 * Chelonia caouanna Duméril & Bibron, 1835
 * Chelonia (Thalassochelys) Caouana Fitzinger, 1836
 * Chelonia (Thalassochelys) atra Fitzinger, 1836
 * Thalassochelys caretta Bonaparte, 1838
 * Chelonia (Caouanna) cephalo Cocteau in Cocteau & Bibron in Ramon de la Sagra, 1838
 * Halichelys atra Fitzinger, 1843
 * Caounana Caretta Gray, 1844
 * Caouana elongata Gray, 1844
 * Thalassochelys Caouana Agassiz, 1857
 * Thalassochelys corticata Girard, 1858
 * Chelonia corticata Strauch, 1862
 * Thalassochelys elongata Strauch, 1862
 * Thalassochelys caouana Nardo, 1864
 * Eremonia elongata Gray, 1873
 * Caretta caretta Stejneger, 1873
 * Thalassochelys cephalo Barbour & Cole, 1906
 * Caretta caretta caretta Mertens & Muller, 1928
 * Caretta gigas Deraniyagala, 1933
 * Caretta caretta gigas Deraniyagala, 1939
 * Caretta caretta tarapacana Caldwell, 1962
 * Chelonia cahuano Tamayo, 1962
 * Caretta careta Tamayo, 1962

Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email) 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a pretty big list, which is one reason I suggested a footnote. Just over the last 24 hours, a new taxobox parameter has been introduced, which may be useful here. Have a look at gyrfalcon to see how it might help. I'm not saying that the synonyms have to be listed that way, although I think the information probably ought to be included by some means. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, now that a source has been identified with all the information present, it should be included. Drop down menus are so cool!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The synonyms have been included, how should one go about citing this? Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, disregard my comment below (I just saw this). Simply place the citation at the end of the list after the last entry.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this? (see taxobox) Or should it be cited like everything else in the article?  Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Woh, woh...no, you want it like everything else (the placement is correct though...after the last entry). I also think you want it after the first list as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've got it now. Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Genus synonymy

 * Caretta Rafinesque, 1814
 * Caretta (Thalassochelys) Fitzinger, 1835
 * Thalassochelys Bonaparte, 1838
 * Caouana Cocteau in Ramon de la Sagra, 1838
 * Halichelys Fitzinger, 1843
 * Eremonia Gray, 1873
 * ?Pliochelys Portis, 1890
 * ?Proganosaurus Portis, 1890
 * These have also been included in the taxobox. Should the question marks also be included? (They are currently).  Vancemiller (talk· contribs· count· email)  22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe so, but shouldn't these lists be cited? --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Outcome
 :

:

:

.

.

:



Congratulations. Loggerhead sea turtles is now a good article. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)