Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Loggerhead sea turtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Several things
The last paragraph of this section is a little hard to follow. I would recommend starting out with a small definition of each stage of aggression, followed by an explination of what can be expected to happen in each stage.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"However, eggs are not laid too far from the ocean to decrease the risk of hatchlings being unable to find the sea[31]"--pretty rough wording. Do you mean to say that the mothers bury them close enough to the ocean to avoid the danger of them never being able to find it?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I fixed this.--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Breaking up the notes into columns would compact the section and reduce scrolling.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think the notes appear differently depending on web browser (but I'm entirely unsure).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Loggerhead sea turtle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, here goes. Basically, this is a very well-written article, and I don't see it needing much work before reaching GA. A few things did catch my eye, however: --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The first thing I noticed is that the lead will need a little work. It is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, which means that it should not contain anything that isn't repeated later on. That means there isn't normally any need for citations in the lead.
- I rewrote the introduction. I believe the thought progression is easier to understand now.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure? I didn't see anything different from what I did yesterday. I expanded the intro and think it provides a pretty good summary of the article.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I rewrote the lead based off of the bog turtle, there's probably more to include though. The lead shouldn't just be a list of facts, it should have some flow to it. Think about that if you decide to add more information to it.Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done
For consistency with other articles, it's probably best to cite the IUCN directly, using "status_ref = " in the taxobox, ("Casale, P.; Tucker, A.D. (2017). "Caretta caretta (amended version of 2015 assessment)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017: e.T3897A119333622. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T3897A119333622.en. Retrieved 27 October 2020. {{cite iucn}}: error: title has extraneous text (help)")
- Check that scientific names below the family level are in italics, even in the references; Sargassum is a genus, for instance, and should be in italics; Spirorchiidae is a famiy, and should not.
- I put sargassum in italics and capitalized it. Since it is the genus, should it be capitalized in every instance as well?--TimHAllstr (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Taxonomy: you state that the name Caretta caretta "prevailed". I am sure there is more to it than that. Under the ICZN, the epithet "caretta" would have to be used, whatever genus was in use. Without seeing the full list of synonyms, it is difficult to say more.
Could they be included as a footnote? Then it might be clearer whether the synonyms are repeated descriptions of the same species by different authors (perhaps believing that their local populations were different), or different combinations of the same epithet in different genera, or a combination of the two. Whichever it is, the reasons for the large number of synonyms should probably be mentioned.
- Synonyms have been included. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- In the Bog turtle article, taxonomic synonyms were placed in the taxobox (so i'm not sure a footnote would be best). A comprehensive list would be nice, if it could be found, which may not be the case. If the changes do indeed have a larger reason behind them, than it should be stated, but again, the sources may not say this (or perhaps there is no real reason).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- See below for the full synonymy. The article that it came from may also be useful for other parts of this article. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think that we have addressed all the taxonomic concerns now. Please correct me if I am wrong.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Following on from that, strictly speaking, Linnaeus was not the first to name the loggerhead, but the first to give the loggerhead a valid scientific name, according to the rules agreed (much later) by the ICZN. In the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (the starting point for zoological nomenclature), for instance, he cites two earlier names: "Gron. mus. s. p. 85. n. 69. Testudo pedibus natatoriis, unguibus acuminatus binis." and "Brown. jam. 465. Testudo unguibus utrinque binis acutis, squamis dorsi quinque gibbis."
Fixed I made sure that it was clear that Linnaeus was the first to give a scientific name.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In the third paragraph of "Distribution", Western Australia and Southern Africa are mentioned as additional sites, but Africa (Mozambique to S. Africa) has already been mentioned.
- Fixed Got rid of the redundant info.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Avoid phrases like "In fact," ("Distribution", fifth paragraph).
- Done I fixed this occurence. I will check for additional issues--TimHAllstr (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- In "Evolutionary history", you say that it "is a descendent of the ancient species Cheloniidae". While it is true that a single species was the ancestor of all Cheloniidae, you cannot call Cheloniidae a species. I can't think of a simple fix for this.
- The sea turtle article states that Cheloniidae is a superfamily, so I stated that it's descended from the ancient superfamily.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Anatomy and morphology: "several adaptations" are mentioned, but only one is presented.
- Fixed Made singular.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Spelling: currently, there is a mixture of American English and British English (or Commonwealth English) spellings ("labeling", "behavior"; "molluscs", "centimetres").
- Done I changed all the spelling to American English.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The sections on behaviour and early life seem rather devoid of links. Some likely targets would include lethargy, Territory (animal), magnetite, animal migration, etc.
Done--Kaker42 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Loggerheads mature sexually at around age 35 ... Loggerheads that reach adulthood typically live more than 30 years, and often live past 50 years." I misunderstood this sentence; the "50 years" refers to longevity after maturity, meaning a full life span of 85 years, doesn't it? I think that's the figure one would expect to read (total lifespan), rather than expecting the reader to do the sums. The first part is also partly contradicted by the later paragraph in which South African females start to reproduce from 17–30 years old.
- I imagine this sentence has been accidentally altered: "Such damage can require weeks to heal cause the male to dismount."
- done--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that the section on diet is so short. I would expect a lot of detail to be known about what loggerheads eat.
- I have expanded this section, including more prey and mechanisms of feeding.--TimHAllstr (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The section on raccoon fencing needs to be referenced.
- done
References: Since you're using the two-list method of referencing, make sure that the items are in alphabetical order in the second list. I can also see no need to use all capitals in titles, so it would be best to change these to title case or sentence case. Finally, I think it would look better with the first list being split into two or three columns, but that's only a personal preference.
- I alphabetized the references and tried to put the notes into columns. I'm not sure what's wrong but they don't display in columns... Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Synonymy
The following synonyms are taken from Dodd (1988), which is the latest source used by Conant et al. (2009) for their claim of 35 synonyms. The species Caretta caretta and the genus Caretta are different taxa, even if they are coterminous, so they have separate synonymies. I don't think Dodd explicitly discusses the reasons for the synonymy (but since the text of that PDF isn't searchable, I can't be sure).
Species synonymy
| Loggerhead turtle | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| A loggerhead turtle at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, Georgia. | |||||
| Scientific classification | |||||
| Kingdom: | |||||
| Phylum: | |||||
| Class: | |||||
| Subclass: | |||||
| Order: | |||||
| Family: | |||||
| Genus: | Caretta Rafinesque, 1814
| ||||
| Species: | C. caretta
| ||||
| Binomial name | |||||
| Caretta caretta | |||||
| |||||
| Range of Caretta caretta | |||||
| |||||
- Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Testudo Caretta Linnaeus, 1758
- Testudo Cephalo Schneider, 1783
- Testudo nasicornis Lacépède, 1788
- Testudo Caouana Lacépède, 1788
- Chelone caretta Brongniart, 1805
- Chelonia Caouanna Schweigger, 1812
- Caretta nasuta Rafinesque, 1814
- Chelonia cavanna Oken, 1816
- Caretta atra Merrem, 1820
- Caretta Cephalo Merrem, 1820
- Caretta nasicornis Merrem, 1820
- Chelonia caretta Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828
- Testudo Corianna Gray, 1831
- Chelonia pelasgorum Valenciennes in Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833
- Chelonia cephalo Gray, 1829
- Chelonia (Caretta) cephalo Lesson in Bélanger, 1834
- Chelonia caouanna Duméril & Bibron, 1835
- Chelonia (Thalassochelys) Caouana Fitzinger, 1836
- Chelonia (Thalassochelys) atra Fitzinger, 1836
- Thalassochelys caretta Bonaparte, 1838
- Chelonia (Caouanna) cephalo Cocteau in Cocteau & Bibron in Ramon de la Sagra, 1838
- Halichelys atra Fitzinger, 1843
- Caounana Caretta Gray, 1844
- Caouana elongata Gray, 1844
- Thalassochelys Caouana Agassiz, 1857
- Thalassochelys corticata Girard, 1858
- Chelonia corticata Strauch, 1862
- Thalassochelys elongata Strauch, 1862
- Thalassochelys caouana Nardo, 1864
- Eremonia elongata Gray, 1873
- Caretta caretta Stejneger, 1873
- Thalassochelys cephalo Barbour & Cole, 1906
- Caretta caretta caretta Mertens & Muller, 1928
- Caretta gigas Deraniyagala, 1933
- Caretta caretta gigas Deraniyagala, 1939
- Caretta caretta tarapacana Caldwell, 1962
- Chelonia cahuano Tamayo, 1962
- Caretta careta Tamayo, 1962
So it should be something like this:
Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a pretty big list, which is one reason I suggested a footnote. Just over the last 24 hours, a new taxobox parameter has been introduced, which may be useful here. Have a look at gyrfalcon to see how it might help. I'm not saying that the synonyms have to be listed that way, although I think the information probably ought to be included by some means. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, now that a source has been identified with all the information present, it should be included. Drop down menus are so cool!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The synonyms have been included, how should one go about citing this? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, disregard my comment below (I just saw this). Simply place the citation at the end of the list after the last entry.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like this? (see taxobox) Or should it be cited like everything else in the article? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Woh, woh...no, you want it like everything else (the placement is correct though...after the last entry). I also think you want it after the first list as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've got it now. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've got it now. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Woh, woh...no, you want it like everything else (the placement is correct though...after the last entry). I also think you want it after the first list as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Like this? (see taxobox) Or should it be cited like everything else in the article? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, disregard my comment below (I just saw this). Simply place the citation at the end of the list after the last entry.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The synonyms have been included, how should one go about citing this? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, now that a source has been identified with all the information present, it should be included. Drop down menus are so cool!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Genus synonymy
- Caretta Rafinesque, 1814
- Caretta (Thalassochelys) Fitzinger, 1835
- Thalassochelys Bonaparte, 1838
- Caouana Cocteau in Ramon de la Sagra, 1838
- Halichelys Fitzinger, 1843
- Eremonia Gray, 1873
- ?Pliochelys Portis, 1890
- ?Proganosaurus Portis, 1890
- These have also been included in the taxobox. Should the question marks also be included? (They are currently). Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe so, but shouldn't these lists be cited?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
References
- C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. (1988), "Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758)" (PDF), Biological Report 88 (14), FAO Synopsis NMFS-149, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
{{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|journal=(help)
Outcome
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Congratulations. Loggerhead sea turtles is now a good article. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Invalid Ref tags
I noticed we have invalid ref tags in our article. I looked through for any problems, and couldn't figure out the reason why. Any help with these tags? Joshyhmarks (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It often happens, for whatever technical reason, when a lot gets moved around. Just let the bots come along and fix them if it cannot be figured out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Introduction Paragraph
Reading through the intro again I noticed that more on the hatchlings was added. Is all of that necessary in the introduction, or can it just be stated later on in the article?--Kyleemmroz (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Distribution map
Why is the dist. map in the article twice?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the one from the info box. Images should be located where that are relevant to the text. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- That works, it's a beautiful map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Captions
The name throughout the article needs to be consistent. I've seen "the loggerhead," "the loggerhead sea turtle," and "the Loggerhead Sea Turtle" in the captions alone. I believe it should be all lowercase (the loggerhead sea turtle).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- The leading 'the' depends on grammar, but I agree that the name 'loggerhead sea turtle' should be used and consistently. Sometimes it's 'loggerhead' or 'loggerheads', if this is it's common name that that you be given in the lead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is loggerhead not appropriate? If needed I can go through the article and change everything to "loggerhead sea turtle". Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure with this case, but I was asked to say "bog turtle" instead of just "bog." I was told it was informal (but "loggerhead" may be okay, also, check capitalization).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Check capitalization for loggerhead? It's supposed to be all lowercase, we verified this somewhere.... Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Check the caption of the image with the female laying eggs...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Took care of the captions issue. I guess it would be better to be safe than sorry and change the loggerhead to loggerhead sea turtle.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Has a consensus been reached over the naming of this turtle? Is loggerhead an appropriate abbreviation? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- With an article on people you can shorten to the surname or pseudonym (WP:SURNAME), but this article isn't a person. We don't claim in the text that 'loggerhead' is a common name for loggerhead sea turtle - but maybe it is? If we do use 'loggerhead' is should be started from the lead and make the article consistent throughout. I checked some FA articles with three or more word animals and found they used the full name i.e. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, Greater Crested Tern. Therefore, without a claim of a common name of loggerhead, that the usage 'loggerhead sea turtle' is required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If it were stated in the lead that loggerhead is a common name, would it be acceptable? The first sentence would be something like this: The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), or loggerhead, is an oceanic turtle distributed throughout the world. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this was overlooked... See above response/question. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not overlooked. Just didn't know what to say. You can't just make something up yourself, but you can use it if reliable sources says so. Kenneth Dodd p4 says 1.2.4 Standard common names 'loggerhead (English)'. So yes that should be included. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- As well as the lead it wants to be explained in the taxonomy section similiar to Cane_toad#Taxonomy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Dead link?
The link currently 62 here, seems dead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Got rid of the source. It was only used to double cite something.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion:Add reference
"Loggerhead turtles are the most common nesting sea turtle in the United States. They nest from Texas to North Carolina, requiring soft sandy beaches with little or no light pollution. The largest concentration is in south Florida."
- This claim needs a reference. There are none that follow it and important information like this needs to be cited. If the reference is the same as the one that occurs right before it just move it to after. There just needs to be a reference after this comment to verify the statement. --Kaker42 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it. It was already cited in another section and didn't belong in the reproduction section. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Quiescent disambiguation
From the lead "females lay an average of four egg clutches while nesting and then become quiescent, producing no eggs for two to three years". Is seems to me the dictionary definition of resting, quiet or not active is what is meant. However quiescent gives an option of Behavioral neuroscience - that doesn't seem to fit here, but similar enough to check with others. I think the dictionary definition is what is meant, can therefore the link be removed or changed to quiescent? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed I changed it to the dictionary definition. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
juveniles and subadults
"The gender of juveniles and subadults cannot be determined through external anatomy". I think subadult includes juveniles so is juveniles redundant here? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed I removed "of subadults" since it was redundant. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was wrong. Reading Ana Valente's text it is clear that juveniles and subadult are two different things. Kenneth Dodd p5 also gives a definition of each which are different. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
papillae is an ambiguous link found in the Loggerhead_sea_turtle#Feeding section. Can it be resolved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done I changed it to the wikitionary defition. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Loggerhead sea turtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
- ^ Casale, P.; Tucker, A.D. (2017). "Caretta caretta (amended version of 2015 assessment)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017: e.T3897A119333622. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T3897A119333622.en. Retrieved 27 October 2020. {{cite iucn}}: error: title has extraneous text (help)