Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of reptiles of Michigan/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 11 June 2012 [1].

List of reptiles of Michigan

[edit]

List of reptiles of Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a sister nomination to the recently passed List of amphibians of Michigan...I present the state's reptiles! The formatting for this list is based on that of the amphibian list, and I have incorporated comments and improvements made to that list during the FLC into this one as well, so hopefully it is coming better prepared! I look forward to seeing your comments, and thank you in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:*Comment: - I noticed that many of these have no citations for the description, nor for the fact that they are found in Michigan. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments from Crisco 1492:
  • "glacially-derived landforms" - Do we not have an article on glacial terraforming or the terraforming effects of glaciers? That may be a better target.
  • I haven't been able to find a link of this sort...I agree that it would make a much better target, but I'd rather link to straight glacier than a redlinked glacial terraforming... Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into two sentences. And I think it reads correctly in the plural, since species is both singular and plural. I think the correct singular (if "deciduous hardwood" was a specific species) would be "and deciduous hardwood is the dominant tree species". Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comments from Crisco 1492
Note that this isn't going to be a full image review; one is still needed. I selected five randomly
File:Eastern Brown Snake.jpg - I'm rather doubtful that this is an original work, due to the small size and lack of metadata.
I couldn't find anywhere that it was copyvio'd from, but I replaced the photo anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image for Diadophis punctatus edwardsii could use cropping Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really horrible at cropping pictures, and I don't have the software to do it correctly, so if someone else wants to do this I won't have a problem with it but I most likely won't be doing it myself :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Crisco - much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article!

Some comments, FWIW. Not meant to hold up your star sticker (will not vote or check back). Just for you to consider when working on the thing.

  1. A map showing Michigan blown up would be helpful. If you are pushed for space, could put the USA one into a cutout of that state map. Fallschirmjaeger can do this for you. Maybe also consider showing the location of Detroit and naming the lakes for geography ignorant Eurowikians to have some reference of something they have heard of. And the four regions. (you can add some note or caveat if someone gets persnickety about OR in assigning the boundaries).
    I've changed the map to be one of Michigan with an inset of the US. However, I don't think adding the names of one city or the lakes are necessary, and would make it rather crowded. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't think numbering the parts of the state is helpful in the text, as we never use the numbers later (and as south lower and east upper are more explanatory).
    Eh, they're more a transition tool. I don't think they're bothering anything... - Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Add a comment in table (or article text) that the RES is non-native.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It would be interesting to add a column for geographical occurrence (both interesting content, and also plays well off the geography discussion above). The DNR site has some good content here. for instance, we can see that this snake is state-wide. If you need more table space, the first two columns can be tweaked to be smaller (get RexxS or some table expert to do it for you).
    I don't think this is either necessary or advisable. We have already broken this down fairly small geographically (Michigan vs. the world), and interesting distributions (only found in one county, imported, etc) can and are mentioned in the notes column. Besides this, I think it would get very complicated very quickly, as in some cases you would have to list many geographically dispersed counties, which would end up with a lot of names that I don't think would be recognizable to the majority of the population. If people are really interested in where in the state (as opposed to just in the state) these reptiles can be found, they can always go to the individual articles. This is especially true as this is designed to be a gateway article, not the be-all and end-all on each of the species. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like the break by reptile type.
  6. Most of Wiki (and the Reptile Wikiproject), as well as the New York Times and Britanica use lower case for Animalanimal names. For a birder article, I would do the upper case, but only to appease the Wikiproject Birds...as the New York Times still says bald eagle not Bald Eagle.)
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Text is pleasant to read.
  8. Subject is notable and interesting to assemble into a list. I think schoolchildren will appreciate and enjoy it.
  9. I'm not sure that the frost free burrow explanation is 100% correct. I know picta has some degree of being able to withstand freezing temps. Probably serpentina also. Also, probably fair to note that freezes still kill many reptiles, especially if near their habitat limit (as is probable for many of them being in Michigan). (you would have to research this and add cites).
  10. You are using the "notes" column almost entirely for endangered status. Advise to rename the column title then.
    Almost, but not entirely. Therefore, notes is the most correct title. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I advise writing for donations of pics for the animals that have no image. Start with DNR although you may need multiple requests. (I know this is work, but it would make this article prettier and be a real contribution for the individual animal articles.)
    I did some digging, found a couple more images, and added them in. For the rest, I'll keep looking, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Dana boomer (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wikilink "state reptile" (pimping another FL).
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. org tweak: I would talk about occurrence before threatened status (the general/natural before the specialized/legal). So, keep the first sentence the same, but then join the second para right after it. Move the remainder of the first para down to become the last para. Keep the state reptile comment in that para, but put some parens (not threatened) to make it clear, given the rest of that para's content.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. On the talk page, add a banner for Wikiproject reptiles.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Description column is good content.
  16. Categories, refs and the general ref (link to DNR) are all good.
  17. The Graphics Lab help desk will crop your picture for you.
    This has already been done, thanks to Crisco! Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Consider making the keyed column be the common name, not scientific. Yes, it makes it a little bit less taxonomically organized, but more convenient for the layman. (I'm torn on it, but see what RexxS thinks.)
    The table is also sortable by common name, and keying by scientific name is more professional, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Use of the word "species" is incorrect. Several of the reptiles are subspecies. Perhaps "types" of reptiles. 76.79.11.122 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

76.79.11.122 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCO...may I suggest you edit while logged in, due to the trouble editing while logged out caused last time? Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yes, this is covered in the lead, as you see. I don't really want to put it in the table, because Michigan has two subspecies of painted turtle (Western and Midland), but only named the full species as the state reptile, without differentiating between the two subspecies. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused - do you mean they are not referenced in this article (List of reptiles in Michigan) or in the link you provided above? If the former, they are listed down with the rest of the turtles... Dana boomer (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click on the Painted turtle sublink it says "Midland Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) in Lower Peninsula...Western Painted turtle (C. p. belli)...intergrades with Midland throughout the Upper Peninsula." Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am definitely not the person to talk to with regards to navigation templates. If someone else wants to make one up, I have no problem with using it, but it's definitely not my area of expertise. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (apologies for taking so long to get round to this review)
  • "The state of Michigan, and its location in the United States." no need for a period, it's not a complete sentence.
  • "cold blooded" is a dab link and probably should also be hyphenated.
  • I always get confused whether it's "Big Dove" or "big dove", so much so you have a red-linked "eastern massasauga rattlesnake" which is cited by a source calling it "Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake". It's not a major beef, but one day I'd like to try to understand how the English names of these chaps are supposed to be capitalised! I guess I just look for internal (i.e. within an article) consistency.
  • Basically, it's completely confusing. Different projects do it different ways - bird names are generally capitalized, while apparently reptile/amphibian names aren't (at least on WP), but various sources go both ways, and, and, and... I think (?) I've made everything internally consistent, and I've fixed the redlink (by piping it to the capitalized name, which is where the article is...) Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with differentiations based" is there a reason that isn't just "differences"?
  • I think differentiations is correct, although I could be wrong. Scientists differentiate based on differences, so to replace differentiations with differences would basically end up with the sentence saying "with differences based on x difference, y difference and z difference" which is incorrect. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "again predominate" just a question, why not just "again dominate"?
  • "Three species are considered..." of what? lizard or snake or turtle, or the whole shooting match?
  • Would prefer to see an en-dash or something in the empty notes cells.
  • Ref 12. Suddenly I see that mixed date formats are allowable for publication versus accessdate. It's very odd to me, I'd ask you to keep it consistent but it now seems that's a pure preference rather than MOS...

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TRM! I believe I've addressed them all - individual replies on a couple of things above where I had questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that notes which aren't complete sentences don't have unnecessary periods.
  • Would this be all of them? Technically, I don't think any of them are complete sentences (since none have a subject; they're all pointing to an earlier column in the table for their subject), but I'm a little unsure. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed them all, including the one with the semi-colon. I think because the second part (after the semi-colon) isn't a full sentence either, there should still be no period (?). Don't know if I'm right on that though. We'll see if someone else comes through and says to do it the other way :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, TRM! I thought I had them in - isn't that what "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" does? If not, please let me know what formatting I have to change and I'll do it. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – In the Coluber constrictor foxii row, there appears to be an extra line in the Common name column that doesn't show up elsewhere. This can happen if a row has one column too many; can you check that there isn't an extra pipe here that might lead to this? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giants, I looked at both the read and the edit version of the article and can't find anything different. I can't see the extra line in the Common name column, either. Maybe I'm missing something completely obvious, but I can't see anything different in either the formatting or the readout of this row vs. any of the others. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
  • Reptiles are found throughout Michigan, although the only poisonous species, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, is found only in the Lower Peninsula. Using "found" twice in a sentence looks sloppy
  • The use of "considered" in the third paragraph also sticks out to me. Could a few others words be used here?
Thank you for your comments, Ruby. I have added my replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the promotion of this list. Ruby 2010/2013 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thankfully, the fairly tidy File: pages and few problems made this a faster job than I anticipated. There's still room for improvement in terms of general cleanup, but I'm not in the mood for that much nitpicking today, so I'll only go into the one possible copyright problem I found.

  • File:Garter swallowing frog.jpg – The file is presently hosted on Commons, but was originally uploaded here under the same name. According to the File: page, User:Cjottawa released it under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Normally I'd simply take the word of whoever transferred the file to Commons on such claims, but according to the original upload log on the File: page Cjottawa uploaded the file saying: "I grant full non-commercial use rights to anyone. Commercial use requires my prior consent." Such a restriction is incompatible with both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA licenses as well as Commons policy for what files are free enough to be hosted there and our own image use policy. So, what to do now? The question is whether the file is or is not available under these licenses. With access to the deleted local file page I might be able to provide an answer. Somebody more knowledgeable than me might even be able to do that without. Alternatively, Cjottawa could be asked to re-upload the file without this restriction. As it stands, I'm not comfortable with this image being used. Goodraise 23:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, for now, I've removed the image, just to be safe. As for this image, there was a deletion discussion here about the image, in which a user asserted that "Uploader loses the right to restrict image for commercial use by submitting to Wikipedia.", removed the commercial use provision that had been on the image (it said "I grant full non-commercial use rights to anyone. Commercial use requires my prior consent." on the image page), and declared the article kept. I have no idea if this is legit or not. If there is any specific deleted revision you would like to see, let me know and I'll copy it over here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, submitting text and uploading images are different matters in regard to copyright. By submitting text, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." On the other hand, images the copyright of which one is in possession of can be uploaded under whatever license one chooses; Wikipedia (and Commons) just don't accept all of them. Seeing the entire history would be best. Would you mind restoring it temporarily? Goodraise 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the image was uploaded with a GFDL tag and an incompatible caveat. And the author did not make any changes post uploading. The assertion made in the closure that the "uploader loses the right to restrict image for commercial use by submitting to Wikipedia" is technically not quite correct. What rights are lost depends on the license chosen. As the GFDL can't be combined with restrictions like that, this means that either the restriction is irrelevant for use under GFDL, or the file was not actually released under the GFDL. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to answer this question. Someone who is might be found at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Goodraise 16:20, 10 June 2012 (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_list_candidates/List_of_reptiles_of_Michigan/archive1&oldid=1089076981"