Wikipedia:Peer review/Chicken turtle/archive1

Chicken turtle

I've listed this article for peer review because… I recently took the article through GA, which was very useful and the reviewer there gave me some excellent suggestions and additional sources for improving the article towards FA status. Having now worked those suggestions into the article, I am hoping for one or two more eyes before I take it to FAC. Since I have written it as someone who is not an expert on zoology whatsoever, I hope it's accessible/understandable to a wide audience, but I am aware this also means there may be things I've overlooked. Anyway, all comments and suggestions are very welcome!

Thanks, BigDom (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll have a look soon, first some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• It is generally preferred that photos of animals are used in the taxobox instead of drawings, any appropriate photos to use here? The drawing can of course still be used elsewhere.
  • I kept it in on the model of bog turtle, which is an FA, but happy to change it.

Not a big deal, that FA is more than ten years old, though, I can imagine it being questioned in a modern FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Any cladograms to include? If you find one, you can request to get it made into code at WP:treereq.
  • Different papers have produced different trees but I think Bickham et al. 1996 is the most generally accepted so I can add this.

Sounds good, it can always be replaced if a newer, better study comes up. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Any photos of eggs or juveniles?
  • There are very few photos of chicken turtles in general on the Commons (most of the photos there are of one turtle that was found in Virginia in 2012). None of eggs or juvenies sadly, and none of the western subspecies either.
• It's a good idea to make redirects of all subspecies and synonyms, if they aren't already.
  • Will do (that should keep me entertained for a while!)
• Usually info about scientific naming comes first in the taxonomy section, then followed by info on interrelationships. Should also group the etymology with the naming info.
  • Swapped the order.
• Perhaps a good place to ping our resident turtle experts, Faendalimas and Sun Creator. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! BigDom (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Link Emydidae at first instead of second mention in article body.
  • Fixed (this was because I'd moved around the text as suggested before)
• You give occupation and nationality for "French zoologists", but not for other authors mentioned, could be consistent.
• "Both descriptions were based on drawings and a specimen collected by Louis Augustin Guillaume Bosc in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina some years previously" Unclear if the two names are based on the same or different drawings and specimens.
  • Have clarified that it was a single specimen, not sure there's any way of knowing if they were the same drawings?

You can't be more precise than the sources, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Francis Harper determined" When did he do this?
  • Added
• "which are found on every continent except Australia" And Antarctica, surely?
  • Yeah, fair point, I was just going off the source. Have added a different ref.
• "The plastron of the eastern chicken turtle (D. r. reticularia) sometimes features an indistinct splotch of color" Is that what's visible on this photo? The reddish part?
  • Fair enough, I wondered whether it might be unclear. I'll have a go at rewording or using a different fact about the plastron.
• Why is it called "chicken turtle"?
  • This is explained later on, but I suppose it could be moved up to the top.

Yeah, even common name etymologies are usually explained in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Studies of the chicken turtle's mitochondrial DNA support this theory of earlier divergence of the western subspecies from the two eastern ones." When and by who?
  • Walker and Avise (1998) apparently, but the article is behind a paywall so I can't read it to verify

You can get most paywalled articles through WP:RX, a good idea to get everything you might need before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Intergrades of the eastern and Florida chicken turtles are known, however, with several specimens having been collected in north-central Florida." Do they hybridise?
  • I don't think so but it's not totally clear from the source, I'll have a look for extra info.
• Link Chrysemys.
  • Done
• "Ancestors of the chicken turtle and related turtles of the genus Chrysemys may have been present in North America for up to 40 million years" Who stated this, and based on what? The rest of the text only mentions much younger fossils.
  • The 40 million comes from the reference for that sentence but I agree there does seem to be a bit of a jump. I'll see if I can find any more info.
• "Other fossils from the Hemingfordian (20.6 to 16.3 million years ago) are considered to belong to even earlier, more primitive members of the genus." Anything that has been named?
  • Clarified that they are just fossil fragments
• You say "favourite" in one caption, which would be the UK spelling, while the rest seems to be US spelling (as makes sense for the subject).
  • Good spot, thanks. I am from the UK but tried to use US spelling throughout, this one just slipped through
• Looking on Commons, I found some potentially useful free images that look different from what's shown:
• A burrowed individual?[1]
  • I like this one

If you want to use it, you can upload it here with the Flickr uploader below:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Gregarious turtles?[3]
  • I'm not at all sure these are chicken turtles, they look too flat, have scalloped rear scutes, don't seem to be reticulated and don't seem to have the broad yellow stripe on the front legs.
• Good view of long neck:[4]
  • This is a good photo, but again I'm not 100% convinced it's actually a chicken turtle (I would guess maybe Pseudemys nelsoni?)
• Turtles being caught for research:[5][6][7]
  • Ah, these are the VA park staff and their one chicken turtle from a couple of the photos in the article. One of these could be useful in the "Conservation" section.

Makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "The head itself is elongated with a somewhat pointed snout but no other notable features,[43]" seems a bit harsh? Especially since it's followed by "and the digits of the feet are webbed and tipped with claws", which would also seem true for all its relatives? Perhaps say "distinguishing features" instead?
  • Changed
• "the females are larger and heavier than males, although the male has a longer and thicker tail." Why plural for the former and singular for the latter?
  • Changed to plural both times
• "although the male has a longer and thicker tail" Related to mating?
  • Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, will have a look back through the sources in case I missed it
• "Through Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina the eastern chicken turtle is again" Comma after North Carolina?
  • Added
• "Cypress swamp in First Landing State Park, Virginia—it is unclear whether chicken turtles are still present here" Why not show a habitat where it is definitely known from instead?
  • Fair point, I included it as the text mentioned FLSP by name but I'll have a look for an alternative.
• Terms like alligator, ephemeral, brackish, and other somewhat uncommon terms, could be linked?
  • Added these and a couple more

These have all been really useful comments, thanks for being so thorough! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Rest below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "She digs out a cylindrical cavity with a depth of around 4 in (10 cm) and a diameter at the opening of approximately 3 in (8 cm)." Elsewhere, as is customary for science articles, metric units are mentioned first, should be consistent.
• "The mass appears to positively correlated" Missing "be"? Or "correlate"?
• "appear to become much less reproductively active" Remove "ly" from "reproductive"?
• Usually sections on reproduction would come after sections about other behaviour.
• "had consumed trace amounts of plants or algae" What is meant by this? That they had consumed these and that traces were found, or literally that they "consumed trace amounts" only, and how is it known it was only traces? And does it mean it was accidentally ingested?
• You randomly use the scientific name in a few places, probably best to consistently use the common name outside the taxonomy section.
• "These subspecies can be distinguished by their appearance; the western chicken turtle displays dark markings along the seams of its plastron (lower shell), while the plastron of the Florida subspecies is a bright yellow or orange color." Why only give the distinguishing features of two subspecies?
• Link terms and animal names in the intro that are also linked in the article body.
• Why give the description in the last paragraph of the intro instead of following the section order of the article itself?
• "refers to its extremely long neck" Extremely sounds hyperbolic, and not how you term it in the article body.
  • @FunkMonk: Just seen these additional comments (been off a few days, not feeling too great). Thanks again for looking through the article so thoroughly. I'll get around to actioning your advice, hopefully in the next few days when I'm feeling a bit better. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, and get well! When these are addressed, I should be able to support once you hit FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@BigDom: This PR has not received a comment for over a month. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If not, can you close this PR? If so, can you address the concerns outlined above? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: I think it's received enough comments just from FunkMonk. Just as the last bunch of comments came in I started not feeling too great and I haven't really got back into the swing of editing other than a couple of minor bits here and there. I'm happy enough to close it and I will get round to addressing the last few points soon but probably not right away. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me when the rest is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I will, and thanks again for your comments. Even though I've not got through them all yet, the article is still much improved for your input. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)