Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Galápagos tortoise/archive1

Reference formatting per Sasata

 * Oppose Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've only looked at the references, and they really need to be cleaned up:
 * I have never seen an FAC where neither first names nor initials were given for the authors… what's the rationale for doing this? Why are you only giving the first name of a multi-author article, without including et al.? (see ref#59, Chiari 2009)
 * Looking better (but there's still some missing: DeSola 1930; Hayes et al. 1988; Caccone et al. 2002 to name a few) but now it seems odd that article with two authors have both listed, but multi-authored documents get "et al." after listing only the first author. Perhaps just list the first three authors consistently, and use et al. for any additional authors? Sasata (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time Sasata. All checked and changed for initials and et als.Minglex (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ref #3 who's the publisher? location? Why is it all in italics, but the binomial isn't? Language should be indicated.
 * ref #4 page #'s?
 * title case/sentence case is inconsistent for titles throughout all the references
 * ref #5 publisher, location, page #'s?
 * I could go on, but it seems like almost every citation is missing information, or needs formatting fixes. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * References:Perhaps Sasata, Minglex, and myself can all have a good hard look at the references and get those straightened out. I feel like the article is basically there as far as content goes; I would hate to see it fail just because the references are not formatted properly (a fail-able offense no doubt, but so much work was put into this article it would be a shame to not promote when we could have easily fixed the references).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can do, other than doing them myself. It just needs a couple of hours of tedious work, going through every citation one by one and making sure the formatting is consistent. Citation templates are helpful, but I understand not everyone likes to use them. List-defined refs are handy too, but again personal preferences take precedent. Ping me when you think they're up to snuff and I'll go through them with a fine tooth comb. Sasata (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Status on Sasata's items? This will be archived if there is no movement to address actionable opposition. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it help if I were to format all of the citations using the templates and filled in any missing data?  If that is really the only thing holding this up, I'll gladly do it and could have it complete within 24 hours.  I don't want to waste my time, though, if it's not going to help.  Let me know.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could do this it would be hugely helpful! I'm currently in discussion with NYMFan69-86 on what to do as I'm unfamiliar with the templates. Minglex (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I started a few, I'm halfway through taxonomy now, basically the list of templates is here:Citation templates. You want to put each reference into the appropriate format with as much information as possible, then delete any unused fields (for example, a book written by a single author without a wiki article would not need "coauthors" or "authorlink"). I'll just plow through them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please just a few more days Andy Walsh. Work has been slow but Mike Searson has put a lot of time into reference reformatting and things are looking much better. I just anchored the Pritchard 1996 source and redid all the citations (changed them so that they contain the page number of the book). It will get there soon then we can have Sasata reevaluate them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to throw a shitsit because now there are Harvard Citations thrown into the mix?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I put those in...was that a bad move? I usually do it for sources with multiple pages.  Check out Painted turtle, which uses all sorts of citation styles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I seem to remember someone backing up the panty-wadding machine on a FAC of mine because some were harvard and some were typical wiki cite tags. I hate doing things like this twice, so before I do anything else, I need to know.  Personally, I'd rathr go drinking.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with using it for some sources and not using it for others. Books from which twenty to thirty pages of information are used often get anchored and Harvarded.  I'm not 100% positive, but I haven't had any trouble with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I think we're alright.  That was so tedious I feel like I forgot how to speak English.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You savage!!! --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ref 4 - page #'s?
 * Working on itMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gunther 1877 is now anchored with Harvard refs and pages are given.Minglex (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 5 - is it really only one page?
 * YesMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 6 page #'s?
 * 7 page #'s?
 * 8 really only 1 page?
 * YesMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 11 article title? volume?
 * Typo corrected, volume addedMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 18 issue#?; needs ; source is duplicate with #31
 * CorrectedMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the subscription required, because you added a link to a freely available PDF. Sasata (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 21 is in title case, most others are in sentence case
 * Changed to sentence case. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 3, 11, 13, 17, 25 - specify language
 * DoneMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 26 publisher? pages? Also please check the title with the source, since it's German language, many of those words need to be capitalized (they cap the nouns)
 * No publisher offered in same reference in Painted turtle article. Page reference added.Minglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 27 publisher? pages?
 * DoneMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 30 needs a space ("biogeographyof"), and needs to indicate
 * Fixed both. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the url (it led to a paywall with no abstract), and instead substituted the doi; also added the pmid. Sasata (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why there was an ISBN to start with, this is a journal article. Removed.Minglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Ref added by NYMFan69-86? Looking into it.Minglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 32 a fullstop, rather than a comma, should precede the ISBN
 * 34 format is odd … who's the author, why is the year not in parenthesis?; not clear what the title is
 * 35 needs
 * Done.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the url and replaced with the doi link; same effect but more consistent with the rest of the refs. Sasata (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now capitalized, though this is a journal article rather than a book for publisher etc not appropriate?Minglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 41 should islands be capitalized? Cite should end in a fullstop. publisher/location/ISBN?
 * This article was published both as a journal article, and again separately in a symposium volume; which one did you use? Sasata (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 43 year not in parentheses. Binomial should be italicized (or unitalicized in this case, as the title is in italics)
 * Went through all binomials and changed in references.Minglex (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 44 retrieval date not required
 * Removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 45 what's the et al. policy? Seems odd to have it after only one author. Italicize binomial.
 * ChangedMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed: Revista de Ecología Latinoamericana (NOT TYPO)Minglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 46 spell out journal name in full
 * 47 needs ; or, just remove direct link to abstract from article title, the doi link is sufficient
 * I removed the URL, figured it was the better move.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 49 pages?
 * Hyperlinked to CD ROM version of text.Minglex (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 50 remove retrieval date
 * Removed. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FixedMinglex (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 52 something wrong with "(19): 533–19,564."
 * 54, 55 remove retrieval date
 * Removed both.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Sasata. I owe you one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I handles some of the small things myself. I messaged Minglex to come by and fix some of the remaining issues.  He has to be the one to do it, I don't have access to a lot of these sources and most of them I have no idea which pages were used.  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me- I will be back on campus and able to access the appropriate materials within 48 hours. Sorry for the references, I've had no experience in FACs before. Minglex (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and fixed everything that I could see. Please let me know if there is anything still outstanding. Minglex (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To save us time with the back-and-forth, I spent a couple of hours tweaking the rest of the refs. Here's just a few remaining things for you to do (also there's a few above):
 * please check ref #70 (Fritts 1983); the ISBN checker pulls up a book with a different title
 * Corrected.Minglex (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * check to sure sure all instances of the word Galapagos in the refs have the a-acute (á) where they should; I added a few myself where I saw the source, but didn't want to assume they all needed to be changed
 * They reflect the usage as per each title now as far as I can tell.Minglex (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * the Darwin book "Narrative of the surveying voyages" (1839) is cited several times and should be listed in the bibliography with full details
 * Anchored. Minglex (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many, many thanks for this Sasata. I am very grateful for your feedback and input on this article! Minglex (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

TCO prose review (transfer from main page)
Comments follow. Please treat as suggestions even if phrased as orders. They are my thoughts on how to improve things for the end reader. There's a bunch of it, but it is not meant to be aggressive. I took the time, to try to help you as author and your readers.

TITLE: I think the unaccented place name is more appropriate. These are commonly written about geographic features and usually without the accent. Realize that it slows the reader down a bit to see the accent and it makes us look a little pretentious.

LEAD


 * First sentence is too much of an obvious tautology (GT is a T from G). Instead go right into "GT is the largest..."  You can move the stuff about the islands down a couple sentences where you talk about the Spaniards discovering the animals.


 * Delink longest-lived in the lead (link it in the body instead and make it a little clearer what you are redirecting to (that it is not a dictionary definition).


 * Tighten the wording of the third sentence.


 * Just say native in the lead rather than endemic (do the more specific word and blue link definition in the body, but keep the lead tight and readable).


 * Delink island (junk link overall, definitely not for the lead)


 * Fourth sentence is a little awkward as well (I think all of the islands are volcanic. Maybe something more like "the tortois is found only on seven of the Galapagos islands, a volcanic archipeligo x00 miless west of Ecuador.


 * Cut the whole sentence about tautology. (You showed the point directly, no need to explain in lead)


 * The sentence structure and content in the lead is pretty good and enjoyable, but I think some more structure in the paragraphs (probably add another break or two and maybe move a little content around to make the paras each have a more core topic vice a glom of sentences) would help.


 * Instead of 20,000 "now" give a date (end of the 20th century is fine).


 * 2nd para, first and second sentences can be made more active and vigorous "turtle numbers FELL", 'the turtles DECLINED because of"


 * Vermin and grazers are both fun words, but a little bit of a slowdown for the reader. Plus even if they follow the links, they need to go to article to find out which animals were at fault.  I realize there is a list of animals but if you could call out the worst offenders, it will be more tactical.  Also maybe give the rationale "goats that ate their food and rats that ate their eggs" or whatever.


 * Small thing, but I prefer "an eighth", rather than "one other". Also call out that it is in captivity.  Instead of "exist", use "survive" (reader will then by implication understand what happened to the other two).


 * Cut "said to be the world's rarest living creature". It's a very nice quote, but that sentence is too long and the reader gets the point anyhow, when you told him there was a single turtle. I think you can cut "male" as well.  (It leaves some confusion as to if there are surviving females and besides the name helps with the sex, and besides body of your article gives details.)


 * Second para is much more thematically strong then the first. Just rework that first one, maybe break into two and just work on the info org.


 * Cut the last sentence in the lead. It's nice and all, but you're fine without it.

P.s. I got into the copyediting of the lead so much, since the lead is so important. Won't nit every bit of the body text, in the interest of time. And it's really pretty decent in terms of structure and grammar and readibility and fun, but just try to brush it up as well.

TAXONOMY


 * Love the photo! But not the caption.  Cut the second sentence.


 * Nice discussion on the species naming!


 * "...endemism"? (I get it, but can we use a different word?  Uniqueness?  Origin?)


 * Like your use of non-breaking section breaks. Looks good that way.


 * "Keeper of Zoology" -> "of"


 * Don't say Aldabra (keep it Seychelles, confusing when you bring in a new name).


 * " – one to the Seychelles, and another to the Mascarenes" Cut this.


 * I'm not a fan of "whilst". My dictionary lists it as archaic.  Realize this may be a Brit thing, and not trying to get you to change spelling or such, but consider while instead, for appeasment.  We went "automn" instead of "fall" to keep you all happy.


 * Cut the (Fitzinger 1835)s. Add a ref if you want, or introduce the man as an actor in the story.  But these read like citations and repeated.


 * "Phylogenetic": Could we say fossil?  DNA?  Evolutionary?


 * "...clade" fine if you want to mention this and wikilink it. I know biologists just love this term and have a whole journal on it.  But how about a little in article parenthetical definition like (branch).

SUBSPECIES


 * This is really a subordinate section to taxonomy (it's taxonomy of the subspecies)


 * Love your map. I feel like we need to see the relation to the continents and to the IO locations.  What I would do, is leave this one, just like it is!  But add another (small) map to the taxonomy section.  that map would show S. America, and Madagascar as well as points representing the Galapogos, Seychelles, and Mascarenes.


 * "each of the islands of" cut phrase.


 * the eighth -> An eighth


 * extant -> "surviving", or maybe "living"


 * Delink disputed existence (it's circular, now), or link it to a good article on the concept, if one exists. If not, no problem, idea is understandable.


 * Add a little content on the nature of the disputed existence.


 * Also add a bit more content on phantastica in general. It just comes across strange when you say there are probably 10 species, but the only comment you make on the tenth is that its existence is disputed.


 * First sentence of second para is confusing (I finally got it in terms of volcanoes versus islands, meaning parts of islands), but try to simplify all that. Maybe just say populations from different parts of the islands.  Or something.

EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY


 * I get the impression that the genetics supports a single introduction to the islands and then dispersal within them. But are we really sure that there were no subsequent individuals that joined the genetic pool?  I mean if one floated in, why not another?  Can we really differentiate small additions of genetic material to the larger population that would come to exist?  NOt sure how to get into this, but I just think some more discussion from the content might help.  As is, it reads too much like an ovious Noah like comment that we either needed a pregnant momma or a boy and a girl.  I think if you get into the info a little it will help.


 * Were all of the islands tortoise inhabited before the arrival of man?


 * (No action needed) could you imagine spending months without food floating in an ocean current? Or on a ship with no food or water?


 * Are you saying that the divergence started within South America?


 * Are there any sea mounts in the archipeligo that were above land (and presumably tortoised), during the last 5 million years, but that have now subsided? I know when you look at Hawaii, there are islands that come up and then eventually sink down.  Wonder if some of that could have been going on with our tortoises.  Maybe their first homes are under water now.


 * "younger islands formed by subsequent volcanism via dispersal events on local currents in a 'stepping stone' fashion" -> "younger islands via dispersal in a 'stepping stone' fashion"


 * evolutionary radiation -> evolution (since you already say its divergence into subspecies, no need for fancier term).


 * "The species' phylogeny thus echoes the paleogeography of the islands." Think it should be subpecies's not species'. Also would prefer using simpler terms, maybe evolution and formation.

PHYLOGENETICS


 * Cut this as a header, but keep the single sentence intro para (I quite like that). Or if you want to keep a section header, name it subspecies.  I donno if there is some wiki computer glitch with having same name for a subordinate header (but it's normal usage in writing), but if so get around with it, with something better than phylogenetics.  Subspecies is much easier on the eye and really more information conveying.


 * Don't like the wikilink of "molecular biology". That's almost like linking "biology".  Too general a concept.  If it is all DNA research, would call that out.  Or if DNA and proteins, maybe just say that. Also is it only biochemistry showing relations here, or are fossils and structural anatomy (or even behavior observations and breeding) still a part of the story (i.e multiple methods for the evolutionary judgments)?


 * Struggling a little with this section in terms of absorbing the information. Maybe a diagram would help?  Also, what is the rationale for explaining one island before the other?

ANATOMY AND MORPHOLOGY


 * Prefer a single word title. Anatomy or morphology or description.


 * Looks funky having Appearance at a lower level of hierarchy and smaller font than Gigantism and Shell shape.


 * Delink shell and skeleton.


 * Add a parenthetical (shell segment) to explain scute in article. Can still leave it and wlink it though.


 * Possible content add, maybe even a paragraph: I find the legs and feet of these things amazing (and understand the elephant foot moniker). Perhaps some discussion of their biomechanics (made understandable for us civilians) would be helpful.  The limbs are very striking to look at and then when we think of the hundreds of pounds they carry!  Maybe a close-up shot of a limb if you can locate one.  Just a thought, but could be interesting content.

GIGANTISM


 * It feels a little repetitive that we refer to their water/fat stores both in terms of the water voyage and on land. Can this be grouped?


 * Is there a simpler term than osmotic to refer to? (I get it, just worried for the reader).  At a minimum wikilink the concept.


 * Add the term gigantothermy in article in parens and then link that (clearer where people are headed, too mysterious now).


 * "have been described which are consistent with current phylogenetic groupings" feels wordy. Maybe "have been found which may be ancestors".

SHELL SHAPE


 * Content question: does the shell give any advantage other than predator protection?  Why did it not evolve away?  Is it helpful for limiting moisture loss?  Or structureal?  Or male to male battles?


 * Do all of the IO GTs have higher elevations and more food? (like why no saddleback there?)


 * Delink highland


 * Cut mesic and xeric terms. moist and dry or humid and dry give the key information fine.  Also, the stub for mesic is pathetically short...all  you are sending people to is a dictionary definition.


 * Delink Santa Cruz. Do a sweep on this whole thing and only make a wlink once for the whole article per term.


 * "by natural selection" cut.


 * Love the three images of shell types. Very illustrative!


 * Cut "arboreal"


 * The "such as..." phrase should be in commas


 * Cut "(ecological selection)" and "(sexual selection)".


 * Agonistic wlink is going to something on drug mechanisms. Prefer to use some simpler term like male battles or something.


 * "in the context of xeric biomes": cut entirely or say "in dry areas"


 * "as the shape reflects not evolutionary proximity but ecological parity,[43] in other words an instance of homoplasy rather than synapomorphy." Cut.


 * Males being larger is interesting. For C. picta the females were bigger.  Are the GT noteworthy for being male larger where most turtles are female larger?


 * I think we could cut a bunch of numbers that slow reading if we just said males were about twice the weight of females. With ranges, sexes, and units, we end up having eight numbers as written.

IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION


 * I know you are working to find the right spot for the Darwin content. Definitely keep it, but this is not the right spot either.  bump ip up to "2 equals" status and then put it right before Conservation section.


 * We are supposed to use noun form section titles, so I would not do a prepositional phrase. Also, all the content is Darwin specific and his name is a big draw.  Maybe title it "Relation to Darwin's theory of evolution" or even just "Darwin's development of theory of evolution"


 * I think it's good that you're bringing this in, but worry a little that reader may get false idea about importance of the tortoises for Darwin. The finches were the key thing, right?  Just make sure we explain to reader, the relationship so he understands.


 * Try using some blockquotes similar to what Wehwalt did in Allegro. Can really be pleasant for the reader and sets off some of your great finds.  don't do quoteboxes though.


 * Take a wack to skinny the section down as well I know it's your baby, but sometimes a tighten can help.  And this is not core material.


 * I like the thing about him riding the turtles. Keep it, it's fun!

BEHAVIOR


 * Looks funky again how we drop two levels in font size right away and then go up one, later. Make the heirarchy clear.


 * What are they travelling to and from (in AM and late afternoon)?


 * Delink gregarious (article you send to doesn't give any good content, vague stub).


 * Love the wallowing herd picture!


 * (This is a general observation) make the unit use same order throughout. I would generally do metric first, then English.  Also, you can change the decimal usage (throughout article, see lead for example) to make the converted units look reasonable next to the intial ones.  Put in -1 to get tens digits for instance.  Looks really funny when we say 400kg (882lbs) for instance.  Doesn't need to be significant figures exactly, but just don't show too granular of a converted number when the initial is obviously not.


 * Crop and blow up to 200%, or more, the finch-tortoise picture so it's easier to see the bird.


 * Evil turtle killing the bird! (fun content)

REPRODUCTION


 * What is the noise in aggressive encounters (and male dominance only or versus man or other turtle-turtle interactions) and what is noise when they roight themselves.


 * "This is related closely to incubation time, since clutches laid early will incubate during the cool season and have longer incubation periods (producing more males), while nests that are laid later incubate for a shorter period in the hot season (producing more females).[91]" Seems like the functional relationship is more that nesting season determines both incubation duration and sex.


 * Cut "December-April"


 * Change "its death" to "her death". "Its" makes us wonder if Harriet's sex was unknown and is confusing when the name is clearly feminine.

CONSERVATION


 * lucrative export to -> lucrative sale in (it's not really an export)


 * Cut "and more abundant" (cheaper serves).


 * "The remaining subspecies of tortoise range in IUCN classification from extinct in the wild to vulnerable." this is repetitive from what we say at the beginning of Conservation. I think you could take that whole early intro for conservation and distribute the content in historical and recent sections.


 * Make the two subsections more parallel via naming: "Historical exploitation" and "Recent (or current or modern) conservation".


 * "The listing requires that trade in the taxon and its products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying states and international trade for primarily commercial purposes is prohibited." clunky sentence. clean up or delete.  And deep six "taxon" (distraction to have to look it up, for little value in context.)


 * Add a phrase or a sentence in article, describing the function of the Charles Darwin institute.


 * How does the 1970 edict gibe with it already being protected in 1936?


 * Repatriation? How about return to the wild? Or release?


 * Guarded? Choose a better word.  "Less perilous" or "safe" or "improved"...something.


 * "raise at one of" Cut "one of"


 * re-release -> release


 * Poor goats. :(


 * "to restore the insular ecosystems to" Instead of the current mystery wikilink suggest something like: "to restore them (island restoration) to" and wikilink the called out term in parens.


 * Both keystone species and ecosytem engineer is too many cool concepts wedged in for the purpose of wikilinking. Pick one or the other and then nuke the other.


 * "insects it" -> "insects they"


 * Why the sterilized hybrids? Is there hope that there may still be a George-bride in the wild?

REFERENCES


 * Look pretty good in form and content. I did not parse hard, though.


 * Please add the internet links to Open Archive or Google Books for all the 1700, 1800 type references. (they are readable on the net.)

EXTERNAL LINKS


 * Two sites look good.


 * I'm not a fan of the portal sites off to the right (they look clunky, like a stray box). Consider to put inline in bullets, if possible or cut entirely (is on talk page anyhow).


 * I did not check the provenance, but the images look good in terms of location and impact. And I'm fine with them facing eyes out.  You hardly notice it. That's just a wiki thing.

TALK PAGE


 * After you pass FA or feel you have the page copy-edited, I would cut the To Do list.


 * Recommend setting up archiving (ask Suncreator) and getting everything before the most recent GA nomination (before AUG10) manually archived. Can probably leave the archiving parameter pretty loose 30 or even 90 days, given how little talk is on here but get the really old stuff, segregated.

TCO (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for taking the time TCO, much appreciated. I have addressed most of your points, here are the outstanding ones:
 * TITLE: I think the unaccented place name is more appropriate. These are commonly written about geographic features and usually without the accent. Realize that it slows the reader down a bit to see the accent and it makes us look a little pretentious.
 * OK, will move and go through article to replace all instances when time permits
 * Love your map. I feel like we need to see the relation to the continents and to the IO locations. What I would do, is leave this one, just like it is! But add another (small) map to the taxonomy section. that map would show S. America, and Madagascar as well as points representing the Galapogos, Seychelles, and Mascarenes.
 * Will do this when time permits
 * Were all of the islands tortoise inhabited before the arrival of man?
 * No, there are many uninhabited islands, hence the disputed subspecies from islands that probably had no populations.
 * Are there any sea mounts in the archipeligo that were above land (and presumably tortoised), during the last 5 million years, but that have now subsided? I know when you look at Hawaii, there are islands that come up and then eventually sink down. Wonder if some of that could have been going on with our tortoises. Maybe their first homes are under water now.
 * Yes, I think the earliest islands have now sunk. Will re-read Caccone 1999 to see if this is mentioned.
 * Possible content add, maybe even a paragraph: I find the legs and feet of these things amazing (and understand the elephant foot moniker). Perhaps some discussion of their biomechanics (made understandable for us civilians) would be helpful. The limbs are very striking to look at and then when we think of the hundreds of pounds they carry! Maybe a close-up shot of a limb if you can locate one. Just a thought, but could be interesting content.
 * Will keep a look out for this.
 * Content question: does the shell give any advantage other than predator protection? Why did it not evolve away? Is it helpful for limiting moisture loss? Or structureal? Or male to male battles?
 * I will keep an eye out, I don't know the answer.
 * This information, in my mind, would be best served in the turtle article, not here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do all of the IO GTs have higher elevations and more food? (like why no saddleback there?)
 * What is the abbreviation IO?
 * Males being larger is interesting. For C. picta the females were bigger. Are the GT noteworthy for being male larger where most turtles are female larger?
 * I don't know
 * I think we could cut a bunch of numbers that slow reading if we just said males were about twice the weight of females. With ranges, sexes, and units, we end up having eight numbers as written.
 * I understand your concern, but the weights here are also to illustrate typical weights, rather than just the figure of 400+kg which refers to the heaviest one ever recorded. Not sure where else to include it.
 * (This is a general observation) make the unit use same order throughout. I would generally do metric first, then English. Also, you can change the decimal usage (throughout article, see lead for example) to make the converted units look reasonable next to the intial ones. Put in -1 to get tens digits for instance. Looks really funny when we say 400kg (882lbs) for instance. Doesn't need to be significant figures exactly, but just don't show too granular of a converted number when the initial is obviously not.
 * I don't know how to do this at all :(
 * Let me get this for you Minglex.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Crop and blow up to 200%, or more, the finch-tortoise picture so it's easier to see the bird.
 * Will do this when time permits
 * What is the noise in aggressive encounters (and male dominance only or versus man or other turtle-turtle interactions) and what is noise when they roight themselves.
 * It is not described in the sources
 * How does the 1970 edict gibe with it already being protected in 1936?
 * I don't know
 * Please add the internet links to Open Archive or Google Books for all the 1700, 1800 type references. (they are readable on the net.)
 * Will do when time permits
 * Sorry if I've missed out things, will come back to this as soon as I can. Thanks again! Minglex (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We will try to help with some work as well, not just criticism. I just didn't want to take your article in a direction, you didn't want, so listed comments first.  IO is Indian Ocean.  It was just a science question.  Was trying to make sense of the IO turtles not being saddle-backed when evidently it's an easy adaption.TCO (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed NYMFan69-86 concerns
Comments on lead:
 * "However, conservation measures..."-Starting this sentence with "however" sounds a bit awkward because the two linking ideas are about a sentence apart, suggest rewording.
 * The lead seems to cover the main points of the article (although I haven't read the whole thing yet), but it (especially the first paragraph) may need a copy-edit. Some of the sentences don't quite run together as smoothly as they can.  Maybe more then two paragraphs are necessary.
 * I think the lead should mention that the turtle is considered "Vulnerable" by the IUCN. Shouldn't be too hard to find a spot for just a sentence about this.
 * More comments to follow, this is a great article though. :-)  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks NYMFan69. Made some quick changes, will think about tweaking lead with rewrite soon.Minglex (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem Minglex, nice work on the article!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the lead a little longer and changed some of the wording. Is it appropriate? Minglex (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Looks good, just a few small things now: "tortoise" in the first instance, the first two sentences of the second paragraph both say "the tortoise," (repetitive), would move sentence about the number increasing to 20,000 to before the IUCN sentence, and a few sentences have odd commas ("over 100 years, and the oldest known," and "exist in the wild, and one other subspecies" stick out to me). Nice work here Minglex, the lead is beautiful.  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks NYMFan69, I appreciate your input greatly. The lead has been modified accordingly (NB I changed 20,000 to 'over 19,000' as the actual census figure stated later in the article is 19,317). Minglex (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You got it man! The lead has my okay now, I will check out the meat of this article shortly.  You are doing such nice work!  Go turtles!  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

One formatting nit: In the taxobox, the subspecies form an awkward list. Can this be made into a drop down menu as with the lists of synonyms? --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the change: for better or worse I'm not sure. You can revert if you're not comfortable with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ThanksMinglex (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued Review (Sorry for the delay Minglex): *W-link "Giant tortoise" in the first instance.
 * Taxonomy
 * Can the last two sentences of the first paragraph of "Recognition of subpopulations" be cited (Maybe just another [4] inline citation)?
 * "islands are all of recent volcanic origin. They could not have been linked by land bridges."--Suggest combining these two sentences, just for flow.
 * I see "theorised" and "recognized" in the same subsection. Whichever is used (doesn't matter which) needs to be used consistently.
 * I think at the end of the "Recognition of subpopulations" subsection a firm stance on the number of populations in existence needs to be made (is it 15?).
 * "resurrected in 1984, after it was"--drop comma
 * "to the genus Geochelone known as typical tortoises or terrestrial turtles."--comma after "Geochelone?" Also, is there a reason why "typical tortoises" is italicized and "terrestrial turtles" isn't?
 * W-link "Race" in the first instance.
 * Wraps up this section. I will be back. :-)  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All points addressed.Minglex (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)