Talk:Chicken turtle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tastes like turtle[edit]

Please inform the reader in a more upfront and prominent way why they are called "Chicken Turtles". Many, if not most, readers come here primarily in order to find this information. Chrisrus (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more. As far as I was aware the article was always called Chicken turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to find out why they are called "Chicken Turtles". I was curious why they are so called, as it is a strange name. I found my answer in the article, "Their name "Chicken" turtle is referred by the taste of their meat." However, it was hard to find. It is the last sentence in the "Range" section, for some reason. I think it should be in the lead, as other readers like me may come here for the same reason and be better served. If not the lead, then more easily findable for a table on contents user. "Range" is not the obvious place to look for it.
Also, the sentence "Their name "Chicken" turtle is referred by the taste of their meat.", though understandable is poorly written. For example, "is referred by" could be changed to "refers to".
Finally, the sentence is uncited, so a reader may worry that it's just some Wikipedians guess as to the reason, rather than a fact in which we can have more confindence.
Fixing these problems will improve the article for us readers. Chrisrus (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understand the request now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chicken turtle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will take on this review. Hope to have comments up within a couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to take a look! This is my first animal-related article of any length and I'm hoping to take it to FA eventually so all comments/criticisms are very welcome. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after a first read-through, I think the article is already very well-written, and I only have nitpicks to offer as improvements:

  • suggested links for the lead: subspecies, glaciation, plastron, Florida, vernacular name
    Done
  • make sure that output numbers in conversions templates don't end up with more significant figures than the input number (especially when then preceding text indicates that measurement is approximate), e.g. "… females around 10 in (25.4 cm)."
    Fixed that sig.fig. issue and corrected the typo in the lead (should have been 26cm as in the later description). A couple of the sig.fig. issues later on I'm unsure about (e.g. grams to ounces – giving 8–9 g in oz to 1 sig fig would be 0.3–0.3)
  • family Emydidae is alternatively described as "pond turtles" and "the freshwater and marsh turtles"
    They are described as many different things in different sources; I have changed to "freshwater marsh turtles" both times per Carr (don't think the "and" added anything)
  • link Ancient Greek, Latin
    Done
  • maybe pipe link for "had been published first" to Principle of priority?
    Done
  • Because the article is not only about the species, but also the monotypic genus, I think the genus name should be bolded in the lead, and the taxobox should display the generic authority
    I was wondering about this before your comment – since a second member of the genus has been described, should we have a separate page Deirochelys (rather than a redirect) for the genus?
    Update: I was bold and created a new page for the genus. Links etc. should all be updated now. BigDom (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and females up to 26.0 cm (10.2 in)" this is not quite the same as what's stated in the lead
    Fixed, see above
  • Check article throughout for needed links to US States.
    Caught them all, I think
  • D. reticularia is considered to have "one of the most complete evolutionary records of any Recent turtle". Considered by who? Quotes need direct attribution in article text
    Attributed to Jackson
  • ”sub-Recent” please provide link or gloss so reader knows when this refers to
    Added gloss
  • is Deirochelys carri worth a redlink?
    Done
  • link wetland, introduced, hatchling, clutch, incubation period, sexual maturity, ovulate, wildlife reserve
    Done
  • there’s some Harv errors in refs#40 and 76
    Fixed
  • I think the entire article needs an audit to check on the use of "which" and "that"; generally, "which" follows a comma, but there's many websites you can check to review the rules for usage.
    I've had a read through the article but I'm not sure I see the issue to be honest. Happy to fix if you have any particular examples.
    Had another pass through this morning and have tidied these up I think. BigDom (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my second pass through I'll check sources for source-text integrity, and also do a literature check for missing information. Esculenta (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I think I've addressed most of the points above and look forward to part 2. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<<<<<

Driveby minor comments: some metric measurements are first and some in brackets - I would prefer them all to be metric first but as the subject of the article is American maybe Esculenta will specify otherwise. Turtle is sometimes referred to as "it" and sometimes "they" which is occasionally a little jarring when in adjacent sentences. I think alt text is required for FA - not sure about GA. "Which" and "that" looked fine to me as a Brit, but again Americans may disagree.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. I think I've changed the measurements to all be metric first (that's the way they were in most of the sources anyway with being scientific). I noticed that myself with the "it" and "they" reading back through, just a product of writing different bits at different times I suppose but I'll go through in the morning and try and clean up a bit. Thanks for the tip re. alt text too, will get that added. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

In my opinion, the article already meets or exceeds GA-level expectations in terms of WP:WIAGA criteria 3a (main aspects) and 3b (focused). Here's what I might say in a review for an FAC-candidacy, with the understanding that the nominator should feel no obligation to address or include these during this GAC candidacy. Esculenta (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After copulation, the female can retain eggs for several months until the nesting season begins or a suitable nesting site is found." Is the implication that the female is able to overwinter with calcified eggs in the oviduct? If so, it might be clearer to state this explicity (it's my limited understanding that this is not a ubiquitous trait amongst similar turtles?)
  • Seeing as there’s already a section titled "DNA", it might be worthwhile to add that a specific environmental DNA assay has been created to detect this (and other turtle) species as part of the development of a genetic monitoring program for tracking species of conservation concern. doi:10.1007/s12686-020-01167-3
  • how are the demographics of this species affected by growing in maritime forest habitat compared to their mainland counterparts? see here
  • doi:10.1655/08-028R1.1 this study could be used to expand with details specifically how this species can survive extended periods of drought
  • worth mentioning that "unlike the other subspecies, D. r. miaria is demonstrably omnivorous"? doi:10.1643/CH-14-072?
  • the 1997 South Carolina study has been used to extract examples of its diet; perhaps Jackson’s 1996 study would also have some similarly useful or corroborative information?
  • for FAC I would ask if it was possible to include a multiple image of the three subspecies side-by-side to add to the subspecies section
@Esculenta: Wow, thanks for these, some really good sources of extra info. I'm going away for the weekend but will get them added next week. For your last point, sadly there aren't any photographs of D. r. miaria on the Commons, but I shall have a look online for any appropriately licensed images we might be able to use. Let me know if there's anything that still needs addressing in terms of the GA. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is Latreille's 1801 publication available somewhere online? Daudin's? If so could they be cited and linked? The article mentions the type is based on a drawing, so that would be interesting to see.
  • FAC citation nitpicks: book and article titles should be consistently title case or sentence case; maybe the ISBNs should all be converted to consistent 13-digit, hyphenated format? (there's currently a mix of formats)
  • I don't think access-dates are needed for Google books links or other links based on printed publications. Also, publishers aren't needed for journals (if one did that, one should do that consistently for all of them, which just seems unnecessary).
  • add category:Taxa named by Pierre André Latreille ?

I should finish up the GA formalities here: I have read through the article and in my opinion, it meets all of the GA criteria. It is well written and complies with the manual of style. All 8 images are appropriately licensed for use in this article, are relevant, and have suitable captions. Spot checks of a few sources revealed no evidence of original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism. Citations are from reliable sources. Good work, and good luck at FAC! Esculenta (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Redirect from Western chicken turtle[edit]

I have been bold and blanked-and-redirected the page western chicken turtle, keeping its history intact. The previous article was not specifically about the western subspecies despite its title; the photograph was of a Florida chicken turtle, the article mentioned having three subspecies and the descriptions were just of general D. reticularia (e.g. "The western chicken turtle ranges across the southeastern United States from Virginia to western Oklahoma and south to the Gulf of Mexico", which is just wrong). There was no content there which isn't already included in the main article, hence the redirect rather than a merge. Happy to discuss this if anyone opposes. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Chicken turtle basking
Chicken turtle basking

Improved to Good Article status by BigDom (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. Hooks are interesting and sourced. Both hooks are great. Could they possibly be combined into one? Thriley (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicken_turtle&oldid=1200310629"