Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2011/Archive 1

Assignments Time-Lines
1) Create a Wikipedia Account: Dead-line: 9/7/2011 2) Now that you have an account - you will create a user page. Dead-line 9/11/2011 3) Making edits to Wikipedia articles - shall we take small steps? Dead-line: 9/16/2011 4) Wikipedia, as with all encyclopedias, reflects a summation of literature on the topic. The credibility of the article depends on the sources use to construct its content. The challenge is determining what constitutes a credible resource. This link is an excellent summation of my expectations: Identifying reliable sources. Your assignment is to locate one "credible" resource data base. Such data bases store publications from an infinite variety of peer reviewed media. This is one example:http://www.jstor.org/action/showJournals#43693388. Now for the down side. Many of these data bases charge a hefty fee. So your challenge will be to list a data-base that allows, at the very least, access to an abstract (summation of the article)- for free. Our school, county, and state do provide access to such resources (courtesy of your tax dollars). In the section titled "References" below, state the title of the data base, to what extent we have access (abstract only - full article), whether a password is required - if so, where we obtain it and the web link. Sign your entry so that we might know who to seek assistance in its use. No redundancy in the list please. This should be completed by 9/25/2011.
 * The first challenge is to create an account on Wikipedia. This account will be monitored and will be subjected to rules and regulations of decorum as defined by school policy. It will be the account for which credit is given regarding efforts in this class.
 * Add your account name to the project page under the heading membership . Use the format of the "sample name" as a template, substituting your name where appropriate. Remember - edits are made to an article under the "edit tab".
 * A user page can be created by clicking on your account name in the membership list or on your account name in the upper-right hand corner. Once you enter and save any text, the home page is created. It can be as simple as entering Hi!
 * I recommend reading the guidelines for a user page which is most informative.
 * The user page provides you with the opportunity to develop some basic skills in adding and editing content on Wikipedia. It is a place where you can do little harm - so be bold and feel free to experiment.
 * I would personally like to see a brief biography - although I would avoid providing information that can allow the stalkers access. "I am a hot 16 year-old who is out-going with a penchant for old men".... maybe not such a good idea... especially if you provide your actual name and location. Perhaps your educational credentials, personal hobbies and interest and long-term aspirations would be of interest to others in the community.
 * Include images that reflect your interest as a means of developing your editing skills. Also, it may provide you with the opportunity to meet the copyright police.
 * User boxes ... everyone loves to hate user boxes!
 * Eventually you will post your awards... the barnstars that denote your contributions to Wikipedia, given out by those who recognize and appreciate your efforts.
 * Remember - your grade is based on the portfolio ... the user page, for better or worse, will be included in that file.
 * Let's start with something non-controversial; such as spell checking.
 * Your edit history should reflect 10 spelling corrections (not on your own page!).
 * Locating them is as simple as typing in a common form of misspelling in the search box and see what comes up.
 * User:Ettrig makes it extremely easy by maintaining a list that links directly to such articles... take a look.
 * A very important note... the British spell differently. This is English Wikipedia - not American Wikipedia. Before you start changing the Brits spelling and inducing an international crisis... read this American and British English spelling differences.
 * Misspelled words are usually underlined in red in the edit box. You can oftan catch tham if you carfully reveiw your edats. The slippery ones will be caught in time by editors with an eye for such blunders. I've read this edit 50x's and still I am afraid to hit the save button.
 * Once again, a friendly reminder. I am keeping a running record of students who fail to meet the deadlines. When you present your portfolio in a effort to convince me of your engagement and contributions to the project - explaining why your user page consisted of nothing but "Hi!" or why you could not correct 10 misspelled words in five days will make an "A" a rather illusive goal.

5) Credible References - The key to the construction of a respectable Wikipedia entry. Lets start slowly. I want you to state one bit of information and cite its source. Lets make them a "gee wiz" - "believe it or not", factoid. From this I will gather two things. First, what you consider a reliable reference. Second, how much time we will need on developing the skills to format references. On the latter, there are many approaches to the task and apparently no set path in reaching FA. The Project Page has numerous links to that effect. We will start this experiment in my sand box. So go here for further instructions: User:JimmyButler/Sandbox. The dead line for step five in this journey will be 10/2/2011.

6) Be Bold: Venture forth and edit. Make a single contribution of content to an article of your choice. Preferably something that will expand its coverage or supporting detail. Your contribution must be appropriately referenced using the accepted citation format currently being followed in the article. This contribution must stand the test of time. A quick look at the edit history will determine if the article is being actively edited. Those less Bold, may choose articles that have been dormant; those brimming with confidence can edit hot button articles on controversial topics that have no concept of stability. Happy editing! The dead line for step six in this journey will be 10/9/2011.

7) Post your four topics on the project page; they will be subjected to my final approval. The dead line for step seven in this journey will be 10/20/2011

8) Develop your portfolio per class discussion. Document your efforts and be prepared to note you most significant contributions. Although our goal is to cultivate at least one article to GA status, setting up FA for second semester, your grade is a measure of effort. The sooner you start, the greater your chance for academic success. You should collaborate within your groups and with the Wikipedia community. Help will come; however, you will have to construct something to attract their attention and interest. I am optimistic - the talent pool is deep. This will be a very good year! End date: 1/13/2012--JimmyButler (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Philosopy
The dreaded “Research Paper” is a standard hurdle in most AP Programs. It is rightfully included, because many college courses require such publications to validate the students. As a consequence, I have graded literally hundreds of papers with the same enthusiasm as my students have proclaimed when creating them. In the end, the students were rewarded for their effort or destroyed because of their incompetence; some wer even caught by the highly feared Turnitin.com anti-plagiarism software. The papers themselves merely contributed to our overly bloated landfills. Hence, my excitement over this new approach to constructing a scientific document. Rather than researching for a paper that is destined to the circular bin, let us contribute to the world-wide data base for others to benefit.

Good message. Didn't dare to edit directly in the project page. --Ettrig (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are back. Eventually I will break the code on this project and it will be a booming success. My new approach is more systematic... baby steps first, then perhaps an FA quest.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The project page is open for editing, otherwise it would be fraught with my grammatical errors!--JimmyButler (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really think you're on the right lines. Re your above comment about fixing spelling mistakes, I would be pretty confident of finding ten even on Wikipedia's main page, never mind in articles on obscure biological entities. Writing is hard graft, or it is if you do it properly. Researching and marshalling your facts is also hard, but ultimately it's a package that people will judge by its cover. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach
And, there definitely are a lot of holes in Wikipedia. Welcome back. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User Help
I didn't know where else to post this so I'm just going to put it here. I found a user who may be willing to help. The user's name is User:SunCreator I was messaging former students and one of them mentioned SunCreator. I messaged him and told him we were working on a project. I also gave him the link to our project page. I am keeping in touch with him still. I just wanted to let you all know so if his/her user name shows up you'll know who they are. Marissa927 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you build it ... they will come.--JimmyButler (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Khan Academy
Hi, I wanted to share with you a link to a web page that I think is cool, Khan Academy. This guy really has a knack of explaining things. His best subject is math. But for the purposes of this course, scroll down to Biology. --Ettrig (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic Suggestions
If you want people to read the texts that you write, you can choose topics from WikiProject Biology/Popular pages. The following articles are downloaded by someone around a thousand times or more per day. cell (biology), neuron, white blood cell, homeostasis, biological classification, pituitary gland, ovulation, root, pineal gland, macrophage, plankton and diatom.

Another list of important articles to add to is this page. An advantage of choosing a subject like this is that the actual knowledge that you accumulate in the process would be valuable in a future biology career, which would be much less likely if you choose any cute species.

For the topics pointed at here, finding good sources is not a problem. The problem is to understand what is important and not and to describe it in a nice and understandable way. If you choose to work on any of these articles, you will surely not experience a lack of interaction with other editors. --Ettrig (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic Selection One Approach
I'm thinking a hybrid approach. Groups of 4 students. Each student selects one topic for the group to edit (4 articles/ group). These four students will seek to improve all four articles as a team. During the second semester, they will select at least one of the four for a push to FA. The student grade still comes from the portfolio, not the success of any particular article. I'm hoping that by starting with a wide array of topics, we will not box ourselves in with one hard to reference article. Starting with 16 then narrowing down to four. The tomb bat was an epic fail; the students blaming lack of references - despite the early warning to check into viable sources. Unless they attempt FA - there will be no understanding of the word scrutiny. There is also ego... yes FA is a big deal and a source of pride for the authors and the class. Thus we need 16 articles in need of love and attention, related to biology, with some hope of accessing enough references to reach FA. Finally students that have enough ambition to make it happen or at least a group that can connect the dots between effort and grade. No problem. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always felt that small groups are the way to go. That way, if one person is having issues (with whatever...writing, referencing, coding) there are three possible parties he or she could seek help from: the other group members, the Wikipedia community, and the teacher.  If the students are working on their own articles, they can only turn to other editors or the teacher for help.  Plus group work (this is a 'wiki' after all) assures faster work (usually) and more collaboration/sharing of ideas (always).  I think this format of groups of four picking four topics to start out with is a good one; my only concern is grading.  If one group member spends a lot of time one of the four articles and it's not one that gets chosen for an FA push, does that person get any sort of credit for expanding that article?  Other than small legistic concerns like that, I don't really see a problem with this approach; it ultimately comes down to the fact that this is a difficult project that requires a lot of work.  It's up to the students to dedicate the time.  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Group 1: Topic Selections
Topic Selections: I have found a promising looking article on the genus Spathularia, its a very specific genus and there are just three species in it. I have found several resources for it and they have not been difficult to find at all. I was just one sentence when I found it and I have big plans for this page.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find good sources for that I'd say it looks like an ideal candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have only been able to find decent references for S. flavida so far, the other species in the genus have been much harder to locate references for.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to look to User: Sasata for sources, he's wikipedia's mushroom guru.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I also found a really interesting pigeon... weird right? Its called a Victoria crowned pigeon and a Nicobar Pigeon. The Victoria doesn't have much info, mainly just pictures it could be a very interesting choice. Or I also found a rather cool shell, the Scaphella junonia. Just suggestions!--Stanfordbound 14 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think for one of our topics we should do the Royal Tern it is a really short article and i have been able to find lots of articles on it and there is so much more we could do with that article also we neeed to do this tonight. --Captain kirkintosh (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There were a few fish that seem pretty promising, including the Yellowtail snapper, the Red snapper (fish), possibly the Pacific cod. In addition, Kirk and I found a few other possible topics: Diamondback terrapin, Painted Bunting, Western Bluebird, Royal Tern. There were some other ones from that cite that appear like they could use some work, but I need another opinion: Offspring, Biosignature, and Cytoplasm. How do you feel about editing a wikipedia page about a type of cancer? I need help BIG time. (LittleCass 01:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)).

We need another topic instead of Sirenomelia because that topic already has a good amount of information on it unless someone knows somthing about it i don't.--Captain kirkintosh (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Kirk. It seems too rare to add much more information. I think we have better options. How do you feel about some of the ones I listed up there ^^^ ?? (LittleCass 01:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecass (talk • contribs)

Reading what is written above, it seems Krustev LeMont was unable to find suitable sources for the Spathularia rufa or Spathularia neesii species of Spathularia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

TheDiamondback terrapin is already being used by another group so we could not use that and the Red snapper (fish) is already pretty done but the Yellowtail snapper, the Pacific cod, the Painted Bunting, the Western Bluebird, and Offspring could be good articles but i don't think that Sirenomelia is a great article to do because it has some work done to it and i don't know how much info there is out there on it.--Captain kirkintosh (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that Spathularia should replace Sirenomelia, as kirk has expressed doubted and i have found several wikipedians to hopefully help us edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krustev LeMont (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They guys I also found a lot of others on marine life, such as the Elkhorn coral, Bluespotted stingray, and Great star coral. If you want to check them out and let me know what you thing, feel free. --Stanfordbound 14 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked into the Blue Spotted Stingray and the only problem I have seen it the articles I have seen for it have all been abstract. You could maybe get around this, there seemed to be no shortage in the quick search I did. I don't see anything wrong with it. I also have changed my topic to Boletus bicolor. Still a mushroom, but this seems to have many more references, its edible so that should bring the research way up if its used in food.--Krustev LeMont (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Group 2: Topic Selections
Topic Selections: I have started looking up somethings and three underdeveloped articels I found are De Vivo (Disease), Ploughshare tortoise (Angonoka Tortoise), and the Vaquita (Dolphin. I am still looking up something, especially some medical disease, they are kind of interesting. The ones i have named above do have several references on them however, I am still unsure if there a plethora of resources for them. Just wanted to get the ball rolling.--WrdsofHope12 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Alabama Cavefish is a very endagered species, so there's probably a lot of sources on it. --Schrödinger&#39;sZombie (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And I just had to delete part of it because it was word for word plagiarism.--Schrödinger&#39;sZombie (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking around in anatomy, and I found Coccyx. It's a little big, but if it's short enough to consider, there would probably be obnoxious amounts of information on it, since it relates to evolution and such. Also, it's high importance on two different wikiprojects, and gets viewed by like, 1,000 people a day. --Phorofor (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you've got a year to spend on the project that's probably a warning sign. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a dated comment? This year, Mr Butler will evaluate the econtributions. A difficult interaction handled well by the student will yield a top score, even it GA is not achieved. Right Mr Butler? --Ettrig (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking simply of the effort involved. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys we should definately work on the Quoll It is a super cute marsupial from Australia and I found plent of resources many of them from the Australian government. I think it would be fun to work on! :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey fellow group members! :) I noticed that both the Rough Green Snake and the Smooth Green Snake are both very short articles that also have a lot of information to find out during research. I think one of them would be a good choice to try and beef up considering that there's a good amount of info. out there for us to get our hands on. Tell me what you think, please. Also, Mr. Butler brought up the Diamondback Terrapin a few times as being a good species to look at, considering it had a lot of research out there on it. If he brought it up more than once, it'll most likely be promising and I say we jump on that before another group..--Darby0341 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Group 3: Topic Selections
I was looking for short articles that need some work, Woodcock, Spot croaker, Wood Duck, Greater Scaup, Bufflehead, Ruffed Grouse, Redhead (duck) all seem like articles that we should look at. They are short and there are tons of sources for all of them. --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

i found an Arteritis on theres a lot of data on it Dmanrulz180 (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Sex" is only a C-class article, and there have got to be huge amounts of source material for that; similarly are Homosexuality and Reproduction only B-Class. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Also, male and female look like they need work; Dysentery, sexually transmitted disease, Cancer, and AIDS should all have plenty of citable sources floating around the universe, and recent ones for the latter three. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of those, despite failing GA status, are huge with butt-tons of references. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Vital articles


 * Mummichog  http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/kiosk/mummichog.html Patvac-chs (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * American eel   Patvac-chs (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gambusia affinis http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Gambusia_affinis.htm Patvac-chs (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Spot croaker
 * Greater Scaup
 * Redhead (duck)
 * Arteritis
 * "Sex"
 * Homosexuality
 * Reproduction
 * male
 * female
 * Dysentery
 * sexually transmitted disease
 * Cancer
 * AIDS
 * Hog Island Sheep
 * Sex-determination system as well as the articles of individual ones
 * Euglena Patvac-chs (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Donax Patvac-chs (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome Patvac-chs (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Our four topics of choice with related informational cite(s)

 * Template:Taxobox/doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patvac-chs (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spot Croaker

Greater Scaup
 * http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/bird/greater_scaup
 * http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/greater-scaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Northern Pintail is a good example of a FA duck article, we could use the formating from it to do the greater scaup.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hog Island Sheep
 * http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/hogisland/index.htm
 * http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/hogisland/index.htm
 * http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/hogisland.html

I'm actually feeling pretty good about this sheep, I can't help it. It's endangered and has some cultural significance or at least sentimental value to some people and is kept track of by at least a couple of respectable organizations. I think I'm keeping it as one of our articles, and if it doesn't work out that's why we have four articles to work on. —Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Gambusia affinis <(may be boring, but I keep finding tons of information on reasonable cites)
 * http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Gambusia_affinis.htm <(tons of info)
 * http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=126 <(tons of info)
 * http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=846 <(tons of info)
 * http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~tbonner/txfishes/gambusia%20affinis.htm
 * http://wdfw.wa.gov/ais/species.php?Name=gambusia_affinis
 * http://www.gambusia.net/ACmosquito.html
 * A suggestion is to put the reference links on the talk page of the article that way everyone can find it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Thank you. Patvac-chs (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you stay as far away as you can from general topics like male or female and even further away from controversial ones like AIDS and homosexuality. What you ought to be looking for is a quiet backwater that you can quietly improve as much as you can with the resources you have available. Look at activity on the articles you're interested in, how often they're edited and by whom, any discussion on the talk pages. For instance, pick a species that hardly anyone else seems to care about, perhaps because they don't know about it, like Banker Horse. That's the kind of species article you ought to be looking for. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a wonderful article on the Banker horse, but it is definitely not a species. --Ettrig (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * True, how imprecise of me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Group 4: Topic Selections
Topic Selections: I haven't looked much, but one of my "wikipedia friends" suggested the Spotted Turtle. I looked up the article, it's a decent article but there are tons of resources on it that haven't been used and loads of information we could add. It might be an article to consider? Marissa927 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think Mr. Butler's suggestion of Sirenomelia sounds interesting. We could look into that also. Marissa927 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Butler and I looked over the Spotted Turtle, and he said that he thinks that already has a lot, so it may be too long. I really like the idea of Sirenomelia! But if you're really interested in turtles, I think we should look into the Diamondback Terrapin. Mr. Butler suggested it in class, there's only 12 references listed on it, and we could definitely add to that because each section of the article is fairly brief. On Google, it came up with 290,000 results and it was named as the state reptile of Maryland, so it has to have been researched a lot. More on the medical side, rather than animals, I found a bunch of disease stubs at Category:Disease stubs. We'd have to narrow it down, but my mom is a doctor so I'm going to take this home and scroll through them with her so she can help us decide which ones would have enough references. At her work, she has a ton of books on all different types of diseases and disorders, so we already have references outside of just websites. Let me know what you all think! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OH! And I remember User:UND77 mentioning a shark article she had looked at, and although I'm terrified of them, I think sharks are really cool to learn about, so we should look into that too! Mary, what was the specific shark type, again? --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Diamondack Terrapin sounds good. That should be number 1 if everybody agrees. Then number two could be the Sirenomelia, three could be the shark, and four could be a medical article you talk about with your mom? Then we have a good variety to choose from. Tell me if you agree, and we can ask Mr. Butler for approval. I think we could reach a decision soon! Marissa927 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in with the four of those! I'm excited, and I'm planning on starting ASAP so we'll figure out if there are not enouigh references before it's too late. We need to have the topics finalized on the webpage by Sunday night...if I don't see opposition by then, and no one else has put them down, I'll put them down! So stoked! --Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say those are solid articles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and submit Diamondback Terrapin and Sirenomelia. Then tomorrow if somebody would make a final decision on the other two. I'm excited to start! I agree Maggie that we need to start so if we cannot get a lot of resources we'll know right off the bat. Let's shoot for the FA guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of the Diamondback Terrapin. That's a go for me. However, I have doubts on Sirenomelia. It seems solid online, but we also need articles, books, etc. I have only seen a few references on it. I just do not want to dig ourselves into a hole of no references. As far as the shark, I'm going to go through some species and see what I can come up with. I have a library of shark books at home. I'll look around, then post a few ideas today. --UND77 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of all the articles your group mentions, that article was my biggest concern as well. All medical articles are difficult to pass at GA and especially FA.  This article does seem a little more straightforward than the others like it, however I think it will still require a lot of technical work.  Look into the references like you had planned, those are a key part of success.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went onto PubMed to do some investigating, there was some articles dispersed here and there. However, definitely not enough reliable references to make it work. Also, I googled and binged it and found lots of blogs, but not enough solid references. I really don't know about that one, seems risky. --UND77 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few options for sharks: --UND77 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal favorite, the Thresher shark. <--- promising
 * Grey Nurse Shark
 * The Sawshark

The Great White article is HUGE, but as you say, choppy. There are way to many pictures, the headings clash with the (plethora of) images, the citations/references are in shambles, and the prose needs polishing. However, I fear that article is too far developed to be picked up as one of our articles. But that isn't for me to decide ulimately; I'm just here offering my two cents. :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think the Thresher is the way to go. The Great White would have been a great article, but all we would be doing to it is referencing, rearranging, deleting, etc. Most of the info about the species is there, just unorganized. --UND77 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I exactly agree with what you're saying about Great White. I haven't looked into the Thresher yet, but it looks very promising.  A lot of information is obviously lacking; most sections are only a sentence.  As of right now I'm on board with you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also leaning toward the Tiger Shark. That species is very well researched, but it seems similar to the Great White article. I'm on the the fence with the Thresher and Tiger. Both have phenomenal resources and references, but one is more developed than the other. --UND77 (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What does everyone think? Do we have two articles decided? Thresher Shark and Diamondback Terrapin? --UND77 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I think we have those two decided. The Nurse Shark and Sawhark also seem doable, but the Sawshark doesn't have as many references as the Thresher and Nurse Sharks. I think you're right about the Sirenomelia, ugh. But I'll sit down with my mom tomorrow so we can try to decide on at least one medical article before nighttime. I think we should all look for another animal article so we'll have 3 of those, and one medical, because Mr. Butler said those are more safe. My mom does have TONS of textbooks and great resources available at her work for us to use for anything medical though, so keep that in mind when looking for resources. Maybe Mary's mom, since she's a master gardener, might have some resources for us if we choose to do some kind of plant? Just a thought, if we don't find an animal we like or just want to widen the horizons, since plants are very much so considered biology! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maggie! You read my mind! Actually, my mom did her university thesis (billion page research experiment/paper) on the medical uses of Garlic. I can sit down with her and ask her about other stuff too, but she seemed really hooked on that. One problem with that: it's not a maitinence article or a stub. I know there's more information needed in that article, but exactly how much I have no idea. The Thresher is a def. There's a problem with the nurse shark I didn't think of until now. There's two different very prominent subspecies of Nurse sharks. For example, the Ginglymostoma cirratum. This is the generic Nurse Shark. It is less prominent than the Grey Nurse Shark, which is more commonly referred to as the Sand Tiger shark. We actually have a few of the Grey Nurse Sharks in our local aquarium. So, I took the Ginglymostoma cirratum off the bulleted list. It's a too unreliable and messy topic. However! The Sand Tiger is a GREAT topic. Honestly, we could go down to the local aquarium and probably get enough information to cover a whole article. Do you think we could do two sharks if all else fails?--UND77 (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I say the Thresher is def a go. As for the nurse shark, we can add it if we run out of time. We need to stick with the Diamondback and the Thresher. Maggie and Mary if you talk to your  moms and find good ideas that would be great, if not, then we can just put down the mermaid and the nurse shark and not use them as much. Remember he said that we only have to end up with 1 article. If all else fails, we can do that. I think we have some solid ideas on our first two! Marissa927 (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have the mermaid disease no matter what. It's so rare. PubMed did not have anything on it. Too risky!! If all else fails let's use the turtle, two sharks, and a plant/ disease Maggie comes up with. Those will always have something on them, it's all about the resources guys. --UND77 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, is the other shark we decided on the nurse shark? Or something else? And Maggie whenever your mom gives you a good idea you can go ahead and add it onto the final list! Marissa927 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, so my mom and I looked through some diseases, but we decided on Calcaneal fracture which is the fracturing of your heel bone. As you can see, it's soooo short already, with only TWO references. There are soooo many resources I've found on it, and it should be pretty doable. There are different classifications of this fracture that we can elaborate on, different surgical repairs, and I'm really excited about this one. One thing that I do think is going to be an issue, is the fact that we're doing TWO sharks. I think that could get kind of repetitive, so how about another medical topic? We looked for another one, and we thought that pneumococcal pneumonia would be a great one. When you type this in in the wiki search bar, it brings you to Bacterial pneumonia and there is basically NOTHING there, not even a chest x-ray. If you google bacterial pneumonia, you come up with 1,590,000 results, which is more than any article we've found so far. I know it's a broad subject, but it'll be easy to get articles and my mom has already started collecting resources at work. So if it's okay, I'm going to go to our topic list and take off the nurse shark, since that was our second pick. I just think that sharks all have so much in common, and we're going to have to focus too much on the disparities between species. I'll go write on the facebook page now. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good Maggie! If your mom really has a lot of resources we should be able to take those articles very far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa927 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

i think we need to rethink the two medical topics, maybe they are too broad. Should we classify? Or do an animal? What does everyone think? --UND77 (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UND77 it will be too challenging to get those articles good. They have too much to cover. And three out of four group members are going to have a hard time getting references on them. Maybe one more animal will be better. Marissa927 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I won't bring you guys the resources from my mom also. I'd divide them up so we all had stuff to contribute to build our portfolio, but maybe bacterial pneumonia is to broad of a topic. Looking farther into it, there's about 7 or 8 different types of them, and that could be too much. I just looked at it as being really doable, because if we were to choose it as the one to push to FA next semester, we wouldn't run out of things to contribute. I plan on mainly doing the calcaneal fracture now that I'm taking bacterial pneumonia off the list, so you guys can look into an animal and I'll look around some too. Just run it by me if you find something! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic Selection / Discussion
Topic Selection: General Discussion / Possible choices etc.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are two: Diamondback Terrapin and Sirenomelia. The first is well researched, thus references should not be limited, and local with the added benefit of a model to follow in the form of Bog Turtle. The latter is just intriguing, and I actually found references on EBSCO, the school's data base.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Diamondback Terrapin, Common snapping turtle, and Spotted turtle are all good turtle articles that come to mind.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if there's a group that is hell bent on working on a turtle article (which hope there is at least one such group :-P), here is an assessment table for all the tagged turtle articles on Wikipedia.  The table breaks up these articles by quality and importance; it's a handy tool.  Good luck everyone!  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hey everyone! I think that my article might be ready to be taken out of the "stub" group, but I don't know how. Could someone help me get it out? My article is not that great but I just think its a bit better than a stub right now.. thanks! I'm working on the Quoll --Savetheoceans (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That Dumb Blue Dotted Box (indentations)
I don't know if any of you are having the same problem that I am. But sometimes this funky little blue dashed box outlines my writing.. I figured out why. Apparently if you indent by just using spaces you make that funky box. Getting rid of it is simple just don't use spaces. If you feel the need to indent use (:Indented line)(without the parentheses of course) and it will indent for you! :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Up the Good Work!
You guys! I was just happily searching wikipedia this morning and both the Sand tiger shark and the Quoll have been moved up to b-class. The next step is GA! Keep up the good work! Gambusia affinis and Diamondback Terrapin are rated C-class! You guys this is absolutely amazing. In only a few weeks we have gotten stub articles close to GA! If you need something to be proud of be proud of this! when your parents complain about your bad Biology grade, show them the edits that have been made, show them the extensive research that this class has done. This is amazing.--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We really are getting somewhere! All the articles are looking great! Im feeling optimistic about multiple GA's by second semester. Who knows?! Marissa927 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tut tut Marissa. That should of course be "GAs", not "GA's". ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Malleus, how could i forget? (: Marissa927 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Access
If you are experiencing the frustration associated with the "I-can-only-see-the-abstract-without-a-subscription-experience," feel free to shoot me a line. UNC has virtually unlimited access to journal databases and I can usually get a PDF of an article within a day or two. --Yohmom (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you so much! :) I might have an article for you in the future ;) --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yohmom, would you be able to access an article about the lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus? If so, that would be greatly appreciated! (LittleCass 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecass (talk • contribs)
 * Of course, is there a specific article you are looking for? --Yohmom (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding sooner. I forgot where I had asked you this question if I was being honest!  But if there is any information about the aquarium life of the Lined Seahorse that would be helpful; however, I am grateful for anything if you are still willing to help even after it took me so long to respond!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecass (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Files and Images
If any of you need any help navigating the complex world of copyright and wikipedia policies for images/sounds/videos just drop a note on my talk page. I saw this on the one article on my watchlist but a few others of you may run into this issue, If you are going to create an image that uses an existing free image, such as one that is already on wikipedia, as a base, you need to provide attribution. The simplest way to do this is to use this tool and upload the file to wikimedia commons. Cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  04:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarizing in Quoll and where else?
Original

The Western Quoll, or Chuditch, formerly occurred as two subspecies over approximately 70% of the Australian continent, being found in every mainland state and the Northern Territory; museum specimens from the east of Australia of D. geoffroii geoffroii are known from Peak Downs in eastern Queensland (Thomas 1888), the Liverpool plains of New South Wales (Gould 1840), and Mildura New South Wales (Kreft 1857). The western subspecies, D. g. fortis, is now restricted to the south-west of Western Australia, occurring at low densities throughout the Jarrah forest and more patchily in the drier woodlands and mallee shrublands of the central and southern Wheatbelt (Maxwell et al. 1996).

Original with cuts

The Western Quoll, or Chuditch, formerly occurred as two subspecies over approximately 70% of the Australian continent, being found --- D. g. fortis, is now restricted to the south-west of Western Australia, occurring at low densities throughout the Jarrah forest and more patchily in the drier woodlands and mallee shrublands of the central and southern Wheatbelt.

The quoll article

The western quoll once existed as two sub-species and was found in 70 per cent of Australia, but is now found only in the south-west of Western Australia. They can be spotted at low densities in the Jarrah Forest and more scarcely in the shrublands and woodlands of the central and southern wheat belt.

In my mind this is not independent writing, but rather cut and paste and superficial modification. This is the only passage I checked. Please check the other ones yourselves.

--Ettrig (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I am so delayed in this response... no excuses, I just over-looked it. Yet more evidence of teachers shirking their duties. Paraphrasing is a concept difficult for students to grasp. My first concern would be "Was it cited?". If not, then this would be an automatic fail. If it was cited, then the issue becomes more of understanding, how much restructuring is necessary to avoid the use of quotations. This problem could be avoided if they would take notes on the basic information, then construct a sentence a few days later without the original in front of them. I agree, the composition is too similar to the original. I will review the article to see if this is a trend.--JimmyButler (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubric for Grading Portfolio
User:JimmyButler/Sandbox I'm working to modify my rubric for the portfolios. This seems especially important in light of the concerns over teachers over-loading the system with student projects. Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program. The emphasis on effort and not the final product should aid in resolving the burden on the experienced editors in Wikipedia. I would encourage my students to review it and make suggestions. Of course, input from others would also be appreciated.

I have also instituted a new rule. Before an article is submitted for Peer Review and thus GA or FA, I must perform a teacher review. This will by no means insure your success down the road; however, I can at the least reduce some of the more obvious errors which waste the time of those who are kind enough to grant us an audience.--JimmyButler (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your projects have not met that kind of criticism. Rightly so. --Ettrig (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Group 2: I'm Drowning!
Hey everyone in group 2. I thought that it would be best to put my sad little plea for help on here, because hopefully it's on your watchlist and you will see this over the holidays. The GA review is getting increasingly complicated. If you guys could help out a little bit that would be great. Logically speaking, I think that my portfolio is well padded. Yours may need a bit more(?) So, if you want to do some portfolio padding, any help would be nice on the GA. I was given a new article to look at, and it is extremely difficult to understand. Mr. Butler is looking at it, but if you guys wanted to have a go at it, you can email me and I will send you the full article. Just thought I would put that out there. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Macaroni Penguin TFA
The Macaroni Penguin will be on the front page December 2! --Ettrig (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cutest animal?
Which animal article from this year is the cutest? Not sure between the quoll and the Olympic marmot.





I think the marmot might be more appealing. Of course the quoll could win a fight... TCO (Reviews needed) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad we did not adopt the naked mole rat.. that would win hands down. Nacktmull.jpg--JimmyButler (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, marmot all the way! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)



It is most definitely the Quoll I mean, its adorable and could probably kill the marmot in minutes. --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Killing isn't cute! Hahaha. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But once your marmot is dead, quoll wil reign! :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance today
The featured article on the main page is the loggerhead sea turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kicking bu...doing well!
Wow, another GA (Hog Island Sheep)!

Really racking up the hardware this year. I expect the little guy in Washington State will get there too.

Is this higher than normal production? Better approach this year? Harder working students? Luck? TCO (Reviews needed) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A multitude of factors; however, none of this works unless the students rise up to the challenge. I am impressed with this years effort and they have proven to be an exceptional group.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)