Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NYMFan69-86 (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 7 January 2011 (→Painted turtle: quick bio on User:56tyvfg88yju). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Painted turtle

Painted turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1

Nominator(s): TCO (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC) and NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The painted turtle is the most widespread, numerous, turtle of North America. The "cardinal" of state reptiles, our turtle is also beloved in British Columbia, but, there, down to its last few thousands. Rated high importance by the Wikiherps, "Painted turtle" draws 500 daily views. To reward the knowledge-seeking hordes, we've noted special features of the animal's biology (e.g. supercooled blood that resists winter freezes) and mentioned the controversies in taxonomy and commercial harvesting. Come pin the star on the turtle!TCO (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Images - I would prefer File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg was tagged as freedom of panorama in Canada, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Canadian FOP situation summary on Commons, agree it pertains and covers us, so have added the template to the file page.TCO (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Belay my last. I think we might have an issue as it is a two-dimensional image. I'm actually researching the 1985 law now, and may need to cut the image. Update coming.TCO (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Update. Unless I learn differently, I'm going to cut the image in 24 hours (and remove the FOP tag and probably even get it culled from Commons); which is a shame as it is pretty and hits two different themes from the article, BC concerns AND road death). Let me leave it up for a day and see if I get any more input at Commons from experts there. I've read the Canadian statute on FOP and doubt it applies as this is not a structure. Wiki Commons policy talks about 2-D images being verboten, but I don't actually see that addressed one way or another in the Canadian statute. To me, this screams "fair use" as the idea that individuals taking a Polaroid of a traffic sign and sticking it in their sock drawer, or even newspapers publishing photos of traffic signs, are violating the law seems unlikely. That said, I think we may need to cut it to be wiki-compliant.

Let me know if you have any other advice to save the image. Finding the municipality and getting them to sign off might be an option—for the NH FG photos, I did write to NH. Hiring a lawyer for Canadian comon law review is probably too much expense for me, though. Also, if this is too much in depth discussion on the review page, not sure the protocol, we can take offline. TCO (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To me the image is 3D it includes the pole and environment as well as the sign, however this may be an incorrect interpretation! It won't stand up under our fair use policy for inclusion. I shall seek advice elsewhere. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I think it's a strong image as it was obtained from a wildlife biologist in BC, CA, and actually is designed to protect painted turtles (not some other turtles) and it is a break from all the wildlife shots (could do something hokey like a turtle on the road, or even a dead turtle, but I think the sign is more artful) and hits two points (BC issues and efforts to save pt, as well as road kill methods), plus it looks sweet. To me, seems fair use as I'm not setting up in the road sign business. Would think a newspaper would not be afraid to run the image in a story on painted turtles. But IANAL. And I realize we need to be pretty "Caeser's wife" with copyright at Wiki, especially with front page features.TCO (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read Misplaced Pages:Fair use. I think I can actually make a pretty good case for the fair usage. I read the 10 pillars and think I meet them. We have permission for the photo itself, just the only issue is the design itself on the physcial sign, so the comments about "could you go get a picture yourself" don't really apply. If I make a snap will still have same problem. It's being used to illustrate a point. It's NOT competing commercially with the original use of the media. I'm not making signs myself! It's in an article, etc., etc. My inclination is to try to save the image (follow the fair use procedure and add the No Gallery and all). But let me know what you think. I will definitely cut it, and article will just be a little less "brilliant", if it risks the star.TCO (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the information you are trying to convey that cannot be conveyed using text? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not needed in the sense of a schematic diagram. I think for someone who has never seen such a sign, like me before I had, it is useful to add to the experience, to bring something home more than just words do. That it is helpful for people to process information both visually and textually. But it's definitely not critical in the sense of a schematic for a complicated machine or something. If you think we should cut it, we will.TCO (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, I don't consider "useful" to meet this Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll just wait rest of today (had an inquiry at Commons) and see if anything comes out about the FoP or otherwise, and then if not, I'll cut the image and get it removed from Commons.TCO (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope this turns out to be be free but ... Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a nice images that adds to the article but, if it has to be cut than so be it (would really like it to stay though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks wing-man. And Fasach. I appreciate your hopes, but of course if we have to cut it, we definitely will do the right thing. I think that is how it will go down, with us cutting it. Have an inquiry in with the Canadian roads project, now, to get their experience and advice also. Let me just leave it up a sleep cycle before getting the Commons guys to scrap it. Well...at least I learned about FoP!TCO (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Image cut, AFDed at Commons, quotebox up in place. Onwards!TCO (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Various preliminary thoughts:

• What is it with the italicisation of the family and subfamily names in the "Taxonomy" section? It's not Misplaced Pages-wide practice to the best of my knowledge, is this something to do with the herptile project?

You are correct, I fixed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake, likely mine, based on not knowing the rule. No Wikiherp herecy. Thank you...and now I undertand where the italicizing stops. TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm rather shocked that this section fails to tell the reader who first elevated the species to a separate genus, and gives little information on the variation in species that have been recognized in the genus over the years (Ucucha's mammal articles have provided some very good examples in that area).

We've covered all the turtles that used to be in the same genera: the abstract here is basically what we talk about. As for who first called these four subspecies one species and genus, we kind of dance around it, but I'll look it up and make sure. Great comment!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear what the comment is saying. We cover the recent taxonomic dispute. If you think it needs more prominence, we can discuss that. But I don't think we tried to hide it. We even pushed to add two more references on the topic (one is late breaking). Essentially Shaeffer and Starkey advocate collapsing the subspecies into one, except dorsalis which they would elevate. Nothing much happened after their 2003 paper, but the 2010 turtle taxonomy committee reported on the subject with a two paragraph review of the pro and con arguments (and the comittee contains Shaeffer) and said that you could use either method (essentially "open mind"). The rest of the field is still using the classical method and that 2010 paper came out a coupla weeks ago. But, for instance protections done by Canada and Oregon are based on classical "four subspecies" breakout. All the fish and game limits in the US tend to break out by subspecies, etc. I really don't know if Shaeffer will win. And we actually only had a half a sentence on him before. But we grew that part a bit. I definitely don't think we should hide anything. But not adjuticate or try to help him "win". I've even read some of the primary literature and it's not as simple as the classicalists are fuddy duddies and Shaeffer got in and did microbiology. For one thing the chromosomal DNA tells a different story than the mitochondrial. And then the southern species does intergrade very readily. And Starkey and Shaeffer admit that it comes down to "what your species concept is". So I think we are being fair and should continue to be fair. I would very much disagree against rewriting the taxonomy within wiki though, given the majority of the field has still not changed and even the 2010 paper was only a "you can do either", not a clear verdict for Shaeffer.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One idea might be to have some sort of "featurey" boxed section for the Shaeffer 2 versus 4 debate: "The controversy rages!". That sort of thing. I'm not sure how this is done on Wiki, but it's the sort of thing you would see in a magazine article. and it allows us to give the matter a little more prominence visually, while not making us take a stance, or develop more content (I really think we have about enough, but we could add a sentence or two also, that's not biggie. Going more than a single para sounds like undue weight, though.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's best for an encyclopedia though (and I've personally never seen it done on wiki). I think basically what we have (maybe a little more) is just fine: we explain that even the experts haven't nailed it down 100 percent yet.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well I think how we have it then, discussing the "4 story" in a para and then the Starkey 2 in the next para (even with a transition showing the connection!), is sweet. On the individuals who discovered and classified, let's huddle and dig into the content and see if we can make something good come from that. You know better than me.TCO (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I left a note on the talk page to get us started.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If we did a set-aside like that (welcome anyone's thoughts on if this is ever done, how to do it mechanically), then we could also add the glacial theory for the subspecies. As is now, when we just have it in the section, we deliberately had that concept before the Starkey comments. Probably both could be separated and put together into a box as some sort of "point, counterpoint" thingie. What do you all think?TCO (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the individual who discovered it, thought we hit it, but we can look at that more and make that better.TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. We have researched and added a new paragraph discussing the initial discoverers. Placed right before the etymology discussion as it is more related to human issues than the turtle itself. Also, easier to do it after the subspecies themselves as animals are discussed (than before).TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The structure seems idiosyncratic. "Food chain" in particular is an odd choice of header, and the material there I'd normally expect to be combined with Reproduction, parts of "behavior" most of "population characteristics" in a broader "Ecology" section. (This would be a major strike against promoting for me.)

I will rename it Ecology to match the other articles on Wiki. FYI: The initial choice was deliberate as a more precise word. "Ecology" can mean more than "what it eats and who eats it" (it is a whole subject that encompasses more than just the food chain, plus it has other connotations, plus it is a fancier word than needed. I would have called it "Predator and prey", but the danged thing is an omnivore. We had Ecology header before and changed it. That said, I think reader will be fine with Ecology and it will better match other Misplaced Pages articles.TCO (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with changing it too, but if we do, we would have to include all of food chain, behavior, and reproduction. Perhaps it could be called Ecology and behavior, like over at Bog turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

done Ecology it is. the "who versus whom" concern. Better to eat than be eaten! TCO (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to merge Reproduction with "what it eats and who eats it". There is enough content for each to stand on their own as a sections. Also the behaviors are pretty different. Particularly, within "who eats it" we're not even talking about the same animal directing the action. I'm open to a discussion of why you think a different org is better, but please explain. I care a lot about the structure and huge skullsweat went into making it what I thought would be best for the reader. I don't want to change just because of "will strong oppose otherwise". What about not merging makes it a bad experience for the reader? TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I personally thoroughly dislike a level-2header directly followed by a level 3 one. To me it indicates that the content has been unnecessarily divided, or that a more general style of writing is needed. In particular the "range" header can go without any loss.

The current method is deliberate. We are grouping ideas into a logical thought heirarchy, a pyramid structure. If I have text before the lower level section breaks, then it needs to explain a higher level idea that encompasses the lower level ones. I could write a cheesy topic sentencey-paragraph that encompasses all the lower ideas, but I think it is low value add. Just taking a place where we had a 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 (at same level of heirarcy) and breaking the 2.1 division just so you can see running text at the 2 level is not proper organization. For instance withing distribution, they are different aspects of the idea distribition (geographic overall (range), micro-geo or stream versus forest) (habitatat), and intra-population of age and sex (pop features). So sex distribution is not a lower level explanation of geo-range, it's a part of the general idea of "Distribution". Again, let's have a dialog as I am open to learning. TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing we could do is merge all the behavior-ish stuff (Repro, Ecology, Behavior) into one meta-behavior section (I could rename Behavior to be Thermo-regulation and spin off Movement to a higher level). I thought it was nicer for the reader to navigate to the separate 2 equal signs breaks, as now, and added low value to group those ideas and just make another layer. But do you think it enhances the experience? (it would just be structural, there would be no discussion of the interactions of one with the other). Another option could also be to group all the Humint typ stuff (Conserv, Use, Culture) into a meta-section. What do you think?TCO (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Not meant as any sort of argument. Just to share, since we are both structure-lovers and want things top notch. But I has a teensy discussion on this issue of empty section headers, over at MOS. Really, I think there are plusses and minuses of each approach, and just sharing this if you find it relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_118#What_is_guidance_.28or_just_opinion.29_on_details_of_section_structuring.3F

• A separate "phylogeny and evolution" (a pretty common header for animals IIRC) section would advantageously combine information currently placed in various awkward places. The information under "fossil" possibly belongs there, or merged within "range". In any case, three sentences do not a section make!

I support moving fossils into Taxonomy and renaming it "Taxonomy and evolution". Give me a sec, as I need to rewrite sentences so clear when reader has not learned about range yet.TCO (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

done Moved it. I think it fits better in the context of taxonomy and evolution. Was kinda sand under my carapace. Feel good it is with other things. There was a little bit of a "geo" concept before, but I don't think it was strong enough to have it under distribution. TCO (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it Taxonomy and evolution, not Phylogeny and evolution (tiny thing). Tax is realier more precise here, as some beautiful story of branching evolution is just not understood. So Tax is more precise to the content. Also, it's an easier word for the general reader.TCO (talk)

Totally agree. And I like that fossils was move up, it fits better, as mentioned.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Little more to be done. This section has grown some, with addition of fossils and discoverers. And I'm concerned the structure is no longer strong. Going to be a sweet section, soon, but need to do some rearranging to make the reason for why one para is before the other more logical.TCO (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rewritten section all integrated and flowin with the new discoverer content and moved fossil info.TCO (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By god, it's perfect!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Circéus (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thoughts! In the past there has been some fumbling of names for sections and subsections, maybe they need further altering. We discuss evolution in the taxonomy section (it was originally a separate section), and which parts of 'Food chain' belong in 'reproduction?' Just so I'm clear.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We also used to have an ecology section that incorporated much of the latter half of the article. It, however, proved to be much to big and finding information in the article was incredibly difficult.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - 1 circular redirect (Chrysemys); 1 bad link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain where Chrysemys is used in the article? Its apparent usage seems to be a toolserve software error. Updated the forbidden bad link. Regards, SunCreator 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in the navbox. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ah! Thanks! Regards, SunCreator 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, your welcome. Thanks for fixing that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References check:: first 40 footnotes and bibliography. Generalised errors needing correction identified. Will pass citation consistency with corrections!: Generally, web citations need to be strongly checked for works contained in larger works, collective authors, and publication dates.

"Taxonomic Information". Western Connecticut State University. and "Species Identification". Western Connecticut State University. are a subsections of a larger document "PAINTED TURTLE (Chrysemys picta)" which is a subsection of "Herpetology Species Page" which is authored by Theodora Pinou and collective authors "Herpetology course Spring of 2000 at Yale University, and Spring of 2006 & 2010 at Western Connecticut State University." Neither document is published by WCSU.

Interesting, based on this table, should authorship be attributed to "Aliya Ercelawn?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, the work is Aliya Ercelawn "Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta" in Herpetology Species Page eds. Theodora Pinou et.al. . The work appears to be published by Pinou. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I changed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Beltz, Ellin. "Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America – Explained" has a copyright date (2006) which ought to be noted.

Included.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)". Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. has a collective author "Herpetology Program"

Changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reptiles: Turtle & Tortoise". San Diego Zoo. is part of a larger work "Animal Bytes" a web periodical.

Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally the citations of sentences in web documents (while consistent and thus meeting FAC requirements) is a bit difficult to understand, try using the phrase "Found at sentence starting: "...""?

There are multiple independent citations of "Species Identification" WCSU which need to be collapsed together.

Condensed, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation of multiple authors inconsistent? Ernst/Barbour vs Foo; Bar; Bok; Baz.?

I changed 'Ernst/Barbour' to 'Ernst and Barbour'. I know they're still not the same, but do the citations and bibliography items have to be consistent in this regard (just a question, I really don't know)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I find that ";" and "and" are much more closely related than "/" and "and". I'd be happy with this! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation of format of web documents ie "(pdf)." versus Misplaced Pages automatically identifying and no indication of file format in text in brackets. Consider removing (pdf)s?

Generally the bibliography and citation quality is high. Web sources need double checking for noted bibliographic elements above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All format=pdf and work=pdf manual adding has been removed. Regards, SunCreator 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome input. We will churn on this and brush up everything and reply one by one. Thanks for the attaboy and we want to make it even better. May be back for questions on a few where don't understand your comment, but will try to fix before troubling you!TCO (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Citation quality issues can be hard to resolve, identify, and can be frustrating. Feel free to ping if I have been unclear. When walking through web sources to produce a citation, remember that you can go up the directory hierarchy "http://foo.edu/store/Johnson/Turtles/painted.html" or even the left-hand / top menus and you may find the page you cited is actually contained in a larger work with an author / editor / date / specific publisher (in Universities, often a department, programme, or individual). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more an issue of me learning it for the first time, then of remembering it.TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you please explain a little more on what is best to list as the publisher? I've just been picking an institution. But I want to learn how to do this right next time. Didn't understand the stuff about directories and home pages and the like. TCO (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. The publisher is the person or institution responsible for issuing a work. In the case of a book it is in the bibliographic page (you've done well, listing both publisher and both locations for some books). In the case of the Journals, for example Labour History the publisher isn't JStor, but "Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Inc.". In the case of websites, it is more difficult. It isn't the host, Facebook isn't responsible for publishing "Jo Bloggs", Jo is. You have to look closer and see who or what organisation is responsible for editorial control, the decision to publish, and ensuring the content is up. In general with websites, the hosting domain is like a printer. Often (wikipedia.org) the host is also the publisher, but not universally. Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so. So obviously a journal is a journal. I don't know if we messed up listing JSTOR, but I get that, it's just a library, really, Elsevier would be the publisher, and we really should use cite journal with a url, rather than cite web anyhow. For a government website, I assume it would normally be the department of fish and game (or whatever). So we are probably fine there. With the Zoo, we missed that it was a journal (actually I sorta headscratched at the time, should have looked into it more), so it needs to be cited with cite journal anyhow. Where we were messing up was with universities as we were not really taking stuff off of the registrar's page or something official, but just using a lab group's page, in essence (or some small publication running out of a professor or group of professors). Is that about it? Just want to nail it so I learn.TCO (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yep! With Journals, publishers usually aren't cited, but the publisher is usually the Society for Publishing the Journal, and not Elsevier: Elsevier is a service that journal publishers (ie: the societies) make use of, and if Elsevier tanked, they'd still publish. With university websites, you're dead on. If it is a Lab / Department page, then the Lab / Department is responsible. If it is an individual staff member's page "/biology/jbloggs/turtles/index.html" then the publisher is the individual (usually). You've got it nailed. I think you should be able to check refs 41-153. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. So we will leave it as a to-do to run every check listed above on the remaining refs and then put a bolded "done" or whatever when we have every check done.TCO (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And we will try to leave publisher off when doing "cite journal" anyhow. Not sure if we had some of that creeping in. I'm just used to it being the physical publisher for a book. And then for a website, it's like what we talked about.TCO (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw. Not ready for FA. 'Painted Turtle' reads in places like a casual magazine article and in other places like a "scientific" paper, making for an uneven read. Too many disruptive bulleted lists that incoporate bolding, once again making for an uneven read. Is it necessary to both bullet and bold a few short passages? There are other ways to manage this. The article should be given a sentence by sentence, section by section review by an experienced and talented editor familiar with "scientific" style and then delivered to PR for further scrutiny. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple things. Those bulleted lists follow MoS, we only go into deep detail where issues are not yet resolved by the experts (i.e. taxonomy), and this article follows the same basic style as Bog turtle, an article dragged through FAC only about seven months ago. This article has already been through a peer review and a GA review.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be but those bulleted and bolded passages are so short that they can be rendered in a single prose paragraph. As they stand, they make for a bumpy, awkward read. It is immaterial whether this article "follows" another article or not. Each article is unique. My greatest concern is the style. As I said, the article should be turned over to an expert in "scientific" style. As it stands, it has an amateurish flow about it that a good editor could correct. Withdraw the article and seek an editor who can give the style an overhaul and bring the article up to a professional level. What's the rush in getting it to FA? Give the article another 6 months' work. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Various people have already discussed the bulleted lists found in the article, see relevant conversations here: 1, 2, and 3. It was deemed the most effective way to convey the information. Also, see this. And the only reason I brought up Bog turtle was because you said you had a problem with this article's "style," I was just proving that an article of similar style made it through FAC. Thank you, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of readability: The writing is a pretty deliberate effort to be more accessible while still conveying information. Obviously, we know the literature to the extent that we are pretty good on this creature and we have tried to convey the really fascinating aspects (like the supercooled). We have a LOT of technical content (sex distribution for instance), but that's all the more reason to be as clear and write for a general readership as possible. I have a Ph.D. so it's not like I can't handle the technical terms. And I've written a lot of technical papers (and always tried to eschew wordiness and communicate in a Katzoff--like manner). I just think saying "spermatogenesis" when you can say "making sperm" is slowing the reader down. It's almost because we have so much confidence in our understanding of the topic that we can make it read like a magazine article (not a bad thing at all by the way...people who write for a living for magazines are something I respect very much and a joy of life...if WP was all written to professional mag standards we'd be a lot more "brilliant-bristling"). I want to convey more information than other pica articles on the net do, and do it with more enjoyment.

I really think this is taking to heart the wiki guidance on writing technical articles, Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable, AND not just wiki guidance, but everything I've learned as a technical writer, what books on effective technical writing say, etc. At this point I've read every picta article on the net (there are a lot, it is popular to write a feature on it) and think we are the best. Have the most information (not just technical, although we are the strongest popular article there, too) and often are more accessible. That said, I may be barking up a tree and "doing things differently". And it might just not be acceptable. Or maybe I'm just not even right on the substance. (I still think I'm right, though, now.) But if you would like it to "read more technical sounding", then obviously it can be changed. I'm very sensitive to not hurting my young collaborators or having them go down, because of me trying to drive a standard. Probably what I would like to do here is "force the issue", have the editor in charge make her decision, and then just see if we can pass with the current article which was honestly meant to be a joy to readers and a boon to wiki. I understand that arguments are read by the editor and considered. It is not just a matter of a vote or doing whatever the reviewers say. I would like to play it out, just for the benefit of all. If it gets closed as a failure, then my colleages can "re-carapace" the thing. I will help with the grunt work, but probably not ask to be listed as nom or "get a star" given the difference in judgment. Sound fair? At least an interesting experiment.

On the bullets: The intention of the bullets is to take what would be pretty listy type of information and really separate it out for the reader. This is approved per this MOS guide: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (embedded lists). And it's not just some odd-ball MOS guide. It's how I would try to write most effectively off-wiki, and how I've been trained. There's reasons for why the bulleted lists help the reader. They help the reader guickly navigate. Every time he sees the darned bullets he knows they're being used for the same thing, with the same structure. In prose, he would have to slog through. He sees an implicit (non-line using) section break, can grab a species that interests him, can decide to blow it off subspecies if he just wants picta general level info, can easily do compare/contrast, etc. (And using the bulleted small paras is not a result of some Powerpoint influence, or not being able to write structure paragraphs. We do that fine in Reproduction with even a narrative flow, and in other areas with clear transitions and the like. It's an honest effort to convey more technical detail with LESS reader pain, as the Wiki guide on writing technical articles advises.) But maybe this is another test case.

I hope the rebuttal is not too loquacious or argumentative. And I do genuinely respect that you are trying to make all starred articles meet a high standard AND that you've reviewed a lot of them. Nevertheless, respectfully, would like to disagree and at least chew it over. I do think these issues of language and improving the prose in wiki are important and just kind of fun and interesting intrinsically. Plus we busted our asses on that article, so the methods are not inadvertant flaws (if flawed) and I think it's important to really grapple with this issue. Heck, maybe I learn something that changes my writing to make it less magazine-sounding (I can be wordy, pretty readily). TCO (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The user account User:56tyvfg88yju was created less than three weeks ago (December 19th), his (or her) contributions consists merely of creating his (or her) user page and talk page, and opposing the promotion of four FA candidates, one of them being Painted turtle. Just throwing that out there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)