Wikipedia:Peer review/Galápagos tortoise/archive1

Galápagos tortoise
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

Have worked it up to GA standard. This is the first article I've considered to nominate for FAC, but I'm unfamiliar with the standards required. Would especially like opinion on prose style and whether any sections are inappropriately long.

Thanks, Minglex (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A briefly note before Xmas.
 * I'm not great at prose, so perhaps someone else will give more comments on that.
 * I notice quite a few styling issues, not cheeking the prose, but the layout. The headings start at = one level = or H1 where it would be normal to start at H2 or == two level == . See MOS:HEAD. Take a look at the heading of Loggerhead sea turtle. If you get to 4 deep consider starting with a semi-colon heading style.
 * sections are NOT inappropriately long, if anything they are inappropriately short. While a sea of text is not welcoming to the reader, to many headings break the flow up.
 * Lots of sections in TOC, not a problem as such but rather unusual.
 * References section is not neat, on my screen a blank area is off to the right, perhaps the George image can be moved a little higher or the be used prior to the references.
 * Reading the text the first thing that arises is why is it called the 'Geochelone nigra' rather then the recent 'Chelonoidis nigra'. Maybe there is good reason for using the old naming, but I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps both names could be used in the introduction? One issue is the line 'Geochelone nigra is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora', yet what is listed here in the reference is the 'Chelonoidis nigra'.
 * lead has 'expl orers' - space here seems an error/typo.
 * Conversions. The lead has some conversions, kg to lb, m to ft, but in the main text this is not followed. 'weights of over 400 kg', 'lengths of 1.87 m', 'less than 500 m' and others.
 * First image i.e. Rollo Beck wants to be on the left. This will help the initial render of the screen, and the layout of images.
 * American spelling and British spelling is being used in the article, Consistency is required. See WP:ENGVAR, ENGVAR
 * Some parts seem unreferenced. Last sentence in Taxonomy, Recognition of subpopulations, Evolutionary history and Floreana Island. In practice last paragraph of each section requires a cite at the end for FA.
 * Merry Xmas! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from a layreader That'll do for now, I'll try to come back and read the rest of the article later.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The picures are lovely :)
 * Evolutionary history section was fascinating.
 * The prose style is often very engaging, but at other points is confusing for a layperson.
 * I'm going to point out the terms I didn't immediately understand, that could be rephrased, explained, or at least wikilinked:
 * In lead: endemic (the lead needs to be as accessible as possible: could this term be paraphrased instead of just wikilinked?)
 * In taxonomy: what's a senior synonym?
 * The whole first two paragraphs of taxonomy are pretty difficult to read.
 * In section 1.2: molecular phylogenetic analyses of testudinids
 * In subspecies: In the map caption, what does extant mean? Also, carapace, and subadult courtship.
 * In subspecies: This sentence doesn't seem to make sense: The taxonomic status of the various races is not fully resolved[53], and the valid scientific names of each the individual populations[11][54][55][56], whilst some researchers consider the subspecies to be full species[57][58].
 * In evolutionary history: "radiation into the divergent forms". Also, phylogeny and paleogeography.
 * In phylogenetics:
 * Pinta Island: Could the start of this paragraph quickly recap the fact that abingdoni are extinct in the wild- if you'd skimmed the earlier sections, this reminder would be very helpful.
 * Santa Cruz Island: Are Cerro Monturra, Cerro Fatal and La Caseta towns on Santa Cruz? Could they be marked on a map?
 * Isabella Island: putatively
 * Floreana Island: "...Floreana specimens from museum collections..." I was a bit confused by this, does this just mean there are museum collections of the subfossil remains of Floreana specimens?
 * Subspecies of doubtful existence: corralled

Many thanks for your both your comments, it is much appreciated! Will be taking a long look at the article with your advice side by side in the next fortnight, time-permitting. Thanks again! Minglex (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)