Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galápagos tortoise/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:43, 3 April 2011.

Galápagos tortoise

 * Nominator(s): Minglex, User:TCO, User:DrKiernan, User:Mike Searson, User:NYMFan69-86 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the Galapagos tortoise is a large and interesting reptile: the largest living species of tortoise, and one of the most long-lived animals on the planet. The species also played a historical role in the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The article was listed as a Good Article in November last year. I believe that improvements made since, including those suggested by Peer Review, qualify it for consideration. The article receives between 10,000 and 20,000 hits per month. Minglex (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Updating nominator list per significant contributions of others while this article was at FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources look impressively scholarly, no complaints there. A few formatting nitpicks, however:-
 * Page range formats: inconsistencies among, e.g., ref 3 ("pp. 174–175"), ref 9 ("pp.251-84" - with hyphen), ref 1 ("pp 90–91") etc. You need  consistent rules for stops and spaces - that applies to the "p" refs, too. In some instances neither pp nor p are used.
 * Two different methods of linking to online articles are used. Up to ref 72 you follow the normal practice of linking the titles. Thereafter,  links are separated until 89, when the former practice resumes. Is there a reason for treating this bunch differently?
 * Newspaper and other journal or magazine titles should be italicised, e.g. The Observer
 * Site publisher names should be given rather than website names. See ref 111 and possibly others.

I have carried out only limited spotchecks, since the content is largely incomprehensible to me. No problems arising, but perhaps content reviewers will cover this aspect further if it is thought necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for swift feedback. 1) I have gone through the references, hopefully they are now consistently formatted. 2) The linking has now been standardised. 3) Is it the case that journal titles must be italicised? I have been italicising the article title in every reference of this article. Is it acceptable as it stands? 4) Site publisher names are now given rather than website names. Minglex (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. (the arkiv.org link) -- Pres N  19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The link which was previously redirected is now a direct link. Minglex (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments I'm liking this, but I have some questions/comments/suggestions first.
 * Why Galápagos tortoise? Surely the English would be Galapagos turtle per OED.
 * Perhaps the etymology of the specific name nigra could be explained a bit more? They aren't black! Such explanations are usually given in the description.
 * I'm wondering about the description of the species - did Quoy & Gaimard use fossils or a specimen collected? How did it end up being the extinct subspecies that was used as the type for the species? Perhaps this ties into the question above; if they used a fossil, how did they know the animal was black?
 * the structure of the article seems a little odd. Why is "Role in the inception of the theory of evolution" where it is? Perhaps it should be down near the bottom with conservation (as part of a generalised "relationshiop with humans") as a subsection of evolution. Also "Role in the inception of the theory of evolution" is quite a mouthful.
 * "Conservation" and "Historical threats", perhaps better renamed "Threats and conservation" and "Historical exploitation"?


 * Generally I'm leaning towards supporting this. I'll take another look very soon. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
 * All the sources refer to the species as a tortoise. In classification terms, the tortoise family (Testudinidae) is a subset of the turtles (Testudines).
 * (From Pritchard 1996, p 21): "the juvenile that served as a holotype for both Testudo californiana and T. nigra (MNHNP9550, carapace length 26.8cm, Figs 6-8) was reported to have come from California, and to have been donated, as a living animal, to M. de Freycinet by M. Meek, captain of the American ship Boston Eagle (l'Aigle de Boston). The donation was made in Hawaii (ḯles Sandwich). The alleged California origin of the specimen may have been supposition based upon the superficial similarity of a young Galápagos tortoise to an adult of the California desert tortoise, Gopherus (Xerobates) agassizi, although it must be admitted that there is no evidence that Quoy and Gaimard were familiar with this species."
 * Pritchard 1996 p 42, writes that the descriptions of both californiana and nigra differed by only a few words. Only the Latin description for californiana is given: "Testudo toto corpore nigro; testa gibba; scutellis dorsalibus priori posteriorque elevatis; loricae cunctis margine striatis; lateribus subcarinatis". The first phrase translates as "tortoise with completely black body", which would account for the nigra designation. As for the attribution of the nominate subspecies to Floreana (Charles) Island, this is a taxnomical fudge. It was first proposed by Garman (1917), and accepted by Pritchard (1996) who suggested we "turn a deliberate blind eye to the weaknesses in Garman's arguments that this form was from Charles Island, and to accept that designation on the grounds that it at least cannot readily be disproven. The procedure would have the advantage of not affecting the nomenclature of any extant subspecies."
 * To summarise- Quoy and Gairmard did describe nigra from a specimen, but there is no evidence that they knew of its accurate providence within the Galápagos. Later, Pritchard deemed it was convenient to accept the linking of nigra with the extinct Floreana subspecies because this decision allowed minimal disruption to the already-confused nomenclature of the subspecies. Please advise as to whether this is appropriate to include in the article.
 * The reason I have included the 'Role in the inception of the theory of evolution' after the section on shell-shape is that the variety of shell shapes was essential to the development of this line of thought. I have now made this a subsection of the previous section and shortened the title.
 * Section titles were deliberately modelled on the FA Loggerhead sea turtle. I think that it is useful to distinguish the conservation issues in the modern day as compared to historically. I agree that 'exploitation' is a more accurate term than 'threat' for the historical situation and have changed this accordingly Minglex (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the prompt response. First off, I win the space cadet award of the day. I meant to say "Galápagos tortoise? Surely the English would be Galapagos tortoise per OED?" But apparently some bfield mice in my hollow head cavity trampled on my last remaining neuron. With regards to the story of taxonomic confusion and historical mistakes you relate, I think it actually quite a good thing to include in the article. You seem to have a good handle on the story (to have related it so quickly) and it would help make the section more interesting. With regards to the bit on the role of shells in evolution, now taht you've made it a subsection the flow makes more sense, so all good there. Some further points:
 * In mutualism "Some tortoises have been observed to insidiously exploit this mutualistic relationship" - insidiously? Also, the claim is extraordinary, and could use some further infomation. Is this behaviour widespread? Not killing your cleaners is like rule number one on reef cleaning stations.
 * The photo of the eggg and baby might be better up in the bare breeding section. A photo from Flickr of tourists and tortoises together (or even the breeding centre, like this one could be used instead. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Phew, I'm glad the Oxford English Dictionary says Galapagos tortoise, I was beginning to think we should demote the OED to an unreliable source or even if you where misreading a different turtle the Galápagos green turtle. I guess it's now a question of diacritics. As a matter of interest what does the OED call the Galápagos_Islands? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is at Galapagos. Galápagos is given as an alternative. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:DIACRITICS and checked on Google books, references within this article and also at nytimes.com and each one is divided evenly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanded taxonomy section
 * Will look into mutualism exploitation further
 * Changes to article photos now done (including alt text). Minglex (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm positive I've seen this discussed elsewhere but I think the 'notable individuals' section should be merged into another section. It's just not enough material to stand as a separate section; it's interesting and can't really be expanded further, so I think it just needs to be moved. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On Geochelone nigra abingdoni perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Harriet (tortoise) is a different subspecies than Lonesome George I believe. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they ould be mentioned in the sections on age (in reproduction) and conservation respectively? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article edited in line with suggested changes.Minglex (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Just a few minor comments. I think "in the modern day" can be removed since the same sentence also uses "still" to indicate modernity. Both "Galapágos Islands" and "Galapágos islands" are used. Personally, I would change Islands to islands in all cases. In the captive breeding section, there's "7 of the 8 endangered" and "four to five years". In that case, they should probably be consistently in numerals, although WP:ORDINAL does allow the current use. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the support. I have made the suggested alterations. Regarding the Islands/islands issue, both Wikipedia and the OED use the capitalised form, so for now I have changed all the instances in the article to conform to this. Minglex (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment' ref 70 does not appear to be a quality reference and if it is the bare link to it wants upgrading to a cite. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO: Very positive on the article. Long review is just how I roll. Have not checked most recent NYM edits.

Very important article for Wikipedia. Kudos for putting your time on something with high readership. Article gets about 700 views per day and is important educational material. Also, I like that you have covered a lot of important science without losing the sense of fun in the topic or making the prose hard to read.
 * Moved detailed prose review to talk page. I have not checked sources.TCO (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit) Pending support: (edit:  need to address image concerns.)  Think it's progressed very well. I appreciate your taking action on so many of my readability comments...and my book of a review. I feel very comfortable now with the prose. Very fun topic and article. I put in a request for that map and will also try to help with some of the urls (when I feel like it, not soon). Both are a fair amount of work versus a small reward. And are totally optional type things. Would not hold up promotion over them. Again, kudos on the work, you ogre, you!TCO (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: Nice job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Image review? And this is a very long FAC-- did anyone check for close paraphrasing, et al?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on the image review, now.


 * No source review has done been done yet. Need a turtle expert as a lot of the stuff is offline.  I can ask Fandamlias, who has 20 years working experience in the field.


 * Sorry about the length. I could put mine into a section.  Or add smiley templates.  ;-)TCO (talk)

TCO Image Review (caveat, IANFN)

1. Permission issues:

A. Following flickr files all say no commercial use: File:Lonseome george.jpg, File:Porteribathing.jpg, File:Galapagos Tortoise and finch symbiosis.jpg (base image for the cropped finch picture), File:Galapagos tortoise dominance display.jpg, File:BabyGalapagosTortoises.jpg.  I know there can occasionally be issues with Flickr images having new (less permissive licenses edited in, but doubt there would be so many). Need to check these permissions, and prove usage OK or remove the images (and hopefully find replacements). [For clarification, Flickr searches in "advanced" with all 3 boxes checked for licences, will return images that are OK for wiki. We can't use any images that forbid commercial use, or that forbid derivatives. If they want attribtion or share alike, that is fine, though.]
 * Replacement images found for all those with issues except for the finch symbiosis one.Minglex (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

B. Map does not say where the underlying image came from in history.  If the base is non-free we may need to redo it, although I know quite a good mapmaker already engaged, so that's doable. Just need an asnwer from author if the base is free (put in description also). FS says underlying map is free. Annotated now.

2. Not a holdup for FA, in terms of permissions or illustrative value, but would caution my friend Minglex on uploading new files that are different pics on top of each other. Better to upload the original from flickr as own file and then do a crop or flip or the like as new file. Also, there were a few cases where a whole different turtle was shown. Better to do new files (if old one was non free, put in an FFD).
 * Will do in future. Minglex (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Illustratative value:

A. all the major issues were illustrated, although we need to see what the situation is if we have to pull point 1 photos. Some of the images (man on tortoise, gallery of 3 shell types, finch, battling turtles) are very helpful for explanation, not just pretty pictures.

B. I wanted a map to show the Indian Ocean Islands versus the Galapagos which would just show the literal halfway around the world, that would be small and go in early taxonomy. Had Fallschirmjäger (who is my expert) try, but he said basically impossible to show this in a small view.

C (half a loaf) would like to have a cutaway of the island map to show the relation to South America. FS is working on, now. Otherwise, map is pretty good diagram. Added.

D. Captions, placement, sizing are good.

4. I usually try to see if I can find any quick free images on Flickr, Google, and Commons, but have not done so yet. Let's see what we are missing. Article was well illustrated before point 1, but may have some holes after.

TCO (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Verifiability spot-check OK. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite understanding the status of the above section. Are the items not stricken considered outstanding? What is the status of outstanding issues? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bold shows the areas where action was needed. There is still a major outstanding issue wrt several photographs.TCO (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - Generally well put together. Many book sources I can't check. A few things:
 * 1) Would recommend cropping off the bottom part of the Rothschild image as the wording can't be read and seems to add nothing that wouldn't be more suitable in a caption.
 * 2) 'provenence' is a spelling typo or an American/English thing?
 * 3) 'indian tortoise' => 'Indian tortoise'
 * 4) link phylogenetic?
 * 5) 'thus echoes the volcanic history' =>'thus echo the volcanic history'
 * 6) 'The legs are large and stumpy, with dry scaly skin and hard scales' => 'The legs are large, stumpy, with dry scaly skin and hard scales'
 * 7) 'ecto-parasites' => 'ectoparasites'
 * 8) 'archipelagoes' => 'archipelagos'
 * 9) David Porter declared that, "...Gallipagos tortoises..." => Galápagos tortoise. I know it's a quote, so unsure about this.
 * Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, have changed all as suggested except the last point about Porter's comments. The words are verbatim, so I think it's accurate to keep it in. Minglex (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Good work. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - nominator has not been active in at least two weeks. This will likely be archived unless Minglex returns to activity. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for absence, have had some big issues come up IRL. Many thanks for all the feedback, I'll be addressing it presently.Minglex (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review: We are compliant now on the images. My major concern after all the images were culled was the lack of a saddleback, but we have that and other stuff now. Like I said, we are passing now, but to make it better, why not (1) crop the image of hatchling and egg (I can help), and (2) go back to Dr. Kiernan's replacement multiturtle wallowing image (I think he had already fixed the copyright problem).TCO (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have now cropped egg and hatchling image. I prefer this version of the wallowing, is there a particular need for the alternative one? Minglex (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine however you want to do it. What I liked about the other was illustrating a social aspect of the tortoises.  I thought text talked about large numbers together.TCO (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - why is Geochelone nigra abingdoni abbreviated to C. n. abingdoni i.e. with a C at the start? Some of my revisions were undone, so i undid one of my others to make it consistent as C. n. abingdoni, but don't understand the reasoning for that abbreviation, Tom B (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The species naming Geochelone changed to Chelonoidis last year. It's covered in the last part of the taxonomy. The name Geochelone nigra abingdoni is out of date, I've renamed the article although it's contents still requires correction. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks, yes the naming aspect isn't covered in the Chelonidis n abing article Tom B (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Struck my support for now. I will reconsider when the change in citation formatting is complete, if someone lets me know when that's done. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness. Needless to say, this FAC exemplifies why articles should be ready before coming to FAC.  I'll let it ride a bit longer, but the page is seriously backlogged, and we shouldn't still be cleaning up an article six weeks later!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Sandy. I, however, feel like this article's one real flaw is/was the references.  Taking a look now, they appear to be formatted very well (unless I am mistaken).  Perhaps User:Sasata could have a look see?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's much better, but still not there. Here's a sample from the first column of refs. Please go through the second column and check for similar issues. If you can sort out the research-required tasks (finding page #'s, issue #'s, page ranges), I'll clean up any minor formatting issues on my next pass through and then I think we should be almost good to go. Sasata (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point I will finally throw in my support. This is a fine article and, now that the reference issues have more or less been taken care of, I think it deserves promotion. Great work by Minlgex, Sasata, Mike Searson, and various other editors. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Careful prose and MOS review still needed, and since when do we allow hidden "thingies" in the infobox? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stricken my oppose based on ref formatting. If I have time tonight, I'll read through the article for prose and MoS issue (no guarantees though!). Sasata (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sasata, you're the man! :-)  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one of many. I gave the article a once-over for prose/MoS. I could probably spend several further hours nitpicking, but life is short :) Sasata (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved commentary about reference formatting moved to talk. Sasata (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.