Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triturus/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 [1].

Triturus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmit this article on the crested and marbled newts after having been unable to respond in time during the first FAC review. I've responded to comments from that archive on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance for reconsidering this one and looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. The problems identified in the previous review seem to have been addressed. I am just a tad concerned about the utter lack of references in the lead. People sometimes say the MoS discourages references in the lead, but I've yet to see the specific policy that says so. It's important to remember that some users may only have enough time to read the introduction, but they may still want to know where a specific claim comes from.--Leptictidium (mt) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree, it's just that I wondered whether there was some specific WP guideline involved. So, with that out of the way, I see no reason for this great article not to get FA status.--Leptictidium (mt) 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD#Citations (and the two pages it hatnotes here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'd leave refs out of lead. Will be along soon to review article. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. They should only be used a) when a fact in the lead is likely to seem controversial or has been challenged; b) there's a direct quotation; c) when (early in article development) something appears in the lead but not the body yet; or d) there's a permissible primary-source claim in the lead that must be attributed (but leads usually should not have those). Maybe some other case I'm forgetting. I think MOS lead only mentions the first two, but NOR is policy when it comes to primary sources (d), and (b) is a matter of V policy, so they apply whether MOS mentions them or not. I don't see a Great Newt Controvery, so unless someone inserts quotes or primary claims, no point in cites in the lead here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and copyediting! Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two species of marbled newts and six species of crested newts, formerly considered subspecies, are accepted today - "today" redundant.
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when did Triton become Triturus? Straightaway or recently?
It became Triturus when Rafinesque described that genus in 1815. It is possible that the name Triton was still used by others, as it was often the case with scientific names in those days when there were no databases on the internet... I don't think I can make this any clearer? Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah my bad/sorry, I misread it, that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
most ponds inhabited by the northern crested newt in the UK today are human-made - "today" redundant
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the common characteristics section, I changed one template so that it gives 20cm=8in rather than 20cm=7.9in. There are two other units there that need imperial units, and you might want to think about the other - do you want it to be in fractions of an inch or decimals? because adding "|frac=4" as a parameter to the convert template will do that.
I added the missing imperial units (except in the morphology table), hope I spotted them all (do millimetres need conversion?). Decided to stick with inch decimals rather than fractions, but as I am not used to imperial units, I don't know which is more common/recommended. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't bother with converting mm as too small, I'd think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Even us metric-stupid people understand mm, even if we have a hard time visualizing a cm measurement. non-metric units are best given in decimal form (unless for something conventionally given in fixed fractional units, like American nuts/bolts), especially in sciencey articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The northern crested newt and the marbled newt are the only species in the genus with a larger range overlap - "large" not "larger" as there is no comparator...?
Replaced "larger" with "considerable" – I meant larger than the very narrow overlaps between other species. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative supportOtherwise I can see little to complain about. I am not seeing any other clangers prose-wise but will read through again. The external video is sensible...but not sure how it goes with out image/EL policies so will defer to @Nikkimaria: on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, so there's no WP:LINKVIO concerns, and using external media is appropriate where they are not compatibly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
Thanks for your comments. I've integrated some of your suggestions; will think about the others over the next days when I have some more time... Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.
Done and original Linnaeus ref added. Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.
Agree. Replaced with "full" Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tylototriton: Should be "were, however, noted". When "however" is used without a comma, it has a different, though today uncommon, meaning ("in whatever manner", i.e. "were somehow noted" or "were, in whatever way, noted"). Is the "however" even needed here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the southern marbled newt, adults mainly breed" In? Sounds a bit odd.
Reworded to "Southern marbled newts mainly breed..." Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paedomophic adults, retaining their gills and staying aquatic" Are these able to reproduce or breath air?
They are not able to breathe air but they should be able to reproduce, such as axolotls do, but the source has no info on whether they have actually been observed to do so. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They can breed, and they can breathe air a little, by gulping (not enough to survive out of water for long). This should be sourceable from anything that covers salamander or general amphibian neoteny broader than a focus on axolotls. A decade ago, I'd have something handy for you, but I don't have those materials any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the structure of the lifecycle sections. What is meant by "phases"? To me, it would mean that there are distinct phases in its life where it is solely aquatic or solely terrestrial as an adult, but that does not seem to be the case? To sum up, it is aquatic as larva, but terrestrial as adult, apart from when it breeds, or how? If so, it is unclear, and I think it might need some restructuring to make more chronological sense.
Well, what characterises these animals is that they are aquatic as well as terrestrial as adults. They have recurrent phases, if you like. What might have caused confusion was the "Lifecycle" title of the section. I've renamed it "Behaviour and Ecology" and made the Reproduction part a separate section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They secrete the poison tetrodotoxin from their skin," Doesn't seem to be very effective, with so many predators. What animals are deterred by it?
The study cited only showed that the newts secrete the poison, it didn't test its effectiveness. But even if it's very toxic this doesn't mean it gives 100% protection – even the highly toxic Taricha newts have natural enemies! Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly it makes them taste bad; it's not "meant" (to engage in Dawkinsian gene anthropomorphism) to be fatal or seriously injurious. So, there probably aren't any studies about how toxic they are, to what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might make sense to have the evolution section closer to the Taxonomy and systematics section (or the other way around), as in virtually all other animal articles. I can see why you have placed it near distribution, but it seems rather disjointed now, as if the information stops arbitrarily and starts again by the end of the article.
I moved the phylogeny part to "Evolution". Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm here, I have a confession to make: as a kid, I caught some crested newts and brought them home, where they soon died. I now realise it was a criminal act... When did it become prohibited in the EU?
The Berne Convention, where the crested and marbled newts are listed, is quite old but was ratified at different dates by its member countries. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some rather late, I suppose. I was able to obtain some in the US from someone returning from Europe, ca. 2001-ish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size and colouration (only mentioned for marbled) could be mentioned in the intro.
I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly less conspicuous than that of the marbled newts. I've added their colour though in the same phrase. Tylototriton (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

It's really great to see this article here. I must note that the article strikes me as rather cluttered at some text sizes; try zooming in and out and you may see what I mean. Lots of tables, pictures, call-out boxes and so forth; I wonder if some selective rearranging or, dare I say, trimming could help with this. Generally, I wonder if the prose could be a bit cleaner (taxonomy and description in particular- the text further down the article flows well). A few specific comments:

  • "This crest gave their English name to the crested newts, in which it can be up to 1.5 cm high (in the northern crested newt) and very jagged." This is a bit clumsy; most obviously, "their English name" cannot be "up to 1.5 cm high".
Reworded this part. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you attached to the lack of capital letters in the table? Is there something in the MOS about this?
Did not find anything in the MoS, but everything in the table is in capitals now - does look better. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall, the newts usually attain an age of seven to nine years" I think not- that may be the "natural" lifespan, but given the number of eggs, surely most individuals die before reaching maturity.
I've rephrased to make it clear that this is the usual age for adults once the larval and juvenile stages passed. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably to mimic a prey and lure the female" Can "prey" be used like that? Do you perhaps mean "a prey animal" or something similar?
Changed "prey" to "prey animal". Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"To mimic prey" would be more concise and equally idiomatic (in the positive sense).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "resorb" mean? This strikes me as jargon
I'm not sure how I could say this in more plain language. "Resorb" is also used in the article on metamorphosis, and it has the specific meaning that the tissues are degraded and absorbed - the gills are not simply lost or fall off. Unfortunately, Resorption is a disambiguation page, so a link would not really be helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two possibilities are defining it in this article (dashes, "ie", brackets- something like that) or linking to an appropriate entry on Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to Wiktionary. Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we have no article on that, that's the solution, but I would challenge the notion that it's jargon, anyway. It's just a word, and its meaning is obvious to any native English speaker, even if their dialect might have it as "reabsorb".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Evolutionary history" has two colons; this is to be avoided. (Also, are you committed to keeping the information on evolutionary history with the distribution? I can see the logic of it, but perhaps it fits more neatly with taxonomic information?)
Fixed the two colons. I've now split off Distribution as a separate section but I prefer to have the taxonomy separated from the evolutionary history (which is not only phylogeny). Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "distribution modelling" the same as environmental niche modelling? The lead of our article suggests that it might be- if so, a link would be great.
Yes, it's the same. Wasn't aware that there's an article, I've linked and reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a redirect in order, or does "distribution model[l]ing have multiple meanings/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting; I don't think that this is far off. Your citation style strikes me as odd, but I've no doubt that you know what you're doing! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've removed some pictures not really necessary and rearranged the remaining ones, should be less cluttered now. Also tried to achieve better flow in the taxonomy and description sections but I think that's about as well as I can do as a non-native speaker - I'm thankful for other suggestions! For the citation style, I just think it's more efficient to give the page numbers directly - I don't need separate "References" and "Cited works" sections this way. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly concur with Tylototriton. This fixation in certain camps with making the citations as complicated as possible with multiple sections for them is, well, "user-hateful", both for readers and for other editors. It's only familiar to and appreciated by professionals in certain academic fields (who had it drilled into them as undergraduates and forced on them professionally in those fields); they're not more than a tiny fraction of our target audience. Template:Rp is a WP:NOT#PAPER innovation that saves us from having piles and piles of redundant citations, or having to use two separate sections for sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your fixes have really improved the article. I wonder if there is perhaps more taxonomic history than you expand upon? There are a dozen synonyms listed in the taxobox which aren't mentioned in the article proper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much to expand upon regarding the synonyms, it would simply mean listing them - and since we already have that in the taxobox, I don't think we need to duplicate? Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would just clutter the prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support; a very readable, well-sourced article. I know/knew very little about newts, so I can't promise I will have caught any errors/omissions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From delldot ∇.

[edit]

Beautifully done. I just have a few very nitpicky comments, because I couldn't find anything else to complain about:

  • Would this sound better reworded? "white stippling on flanks mostly lacking" to "white stippling on flanks mostly absent" or "mostly lacking white stippling on flanks"
"Absent" is good, reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...use structures such as logs..." 'structures' is an odd word. How about "the newts hide in logs..." or "use hiding places such as logs..."
Agree, replaced with "hiding places". Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward wording: "Dispersal to new breeding sites occurs mainly through juveniles..." Maybe "Juveniles are the main reason for dispersal to new breeding sites..."
I'm not quite happy with "juveniles are the reason"; they're not the reason, they're the ones that disperse. Rephrased to "Juveniles often disperse...", hope that sounds better? Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In such a posture, the newts typically roll up and secrete a milky substance" - are we to assume that this substance contains the aforementioned toxin?
That's all the source says unfortunately, see also the comment at Peer Review. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "A 24 million year old fossil" should be hyphenated thus: "A 24-million-year-old fossil".
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this long sentence should be split: "This concerns especially breeding sites, which are lost through the upscaling and intensification of agriculture, drainage, urban sprawl, artificial flooding regimes (affecting in particular the Danube crested newt), and, mainly in the southern ranges, exploitation of groundwater and decreasing spring rain, possibly caused by global warming."
Agree, sentence split. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, really excellent work. delldot ∇. 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tylototriton just in case you didn't see this. delldot ∇. 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw your comments, thanks. Not much time atm; I'll try to be back on the weekend... Tylototriton (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, no rush at all, take your time. delldot ∇. 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything above is addressed. This is FA material. delldot ∇. 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spot check - in progress. Using this revision for navigation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting - most refs have et al after three authors, yet FNs 23, 27 and 29 list more. Also some locations are listed with country after city, some aren't. Just choose on or other. Other than that, refs look in order.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector is looking clear

more to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still going, Cas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, knew I'd forgotten something. Will get back to it today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, using this revision to avoid migration of refs in editing....

  • FN 3 - used 5 times - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
  • FN 29 - used for a slab of interesting text - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source, though the conclusion they have in their abstract is "~4%" for hybrids rather than as a range. Reading the article I can see "3-7%" is also valid. Can see pros and cons and satisfied that this interpretation is valid.
  • FN 33 - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
  • FN 19 - used twice - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.

Spot check all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References now all have three authors + et al. if there are more than five authors in total. Ref Martel et al. 2014, Science, was the only exception, fixed that. Country removed from location parameter in the refs concerned. Tylototriton (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Triturus/archive2&oldid=1088117600"