Talk:Painted turtle

TCO thoughts on remaining tasks for FA

FWIW:

Need to do:

• tighten prose of Conservation and Capture.
• double check Gervais pagination (may be fine, but I got a worry).
• go thru entire article for "omit needless words"
• go thru and actual ce, nit by nit
• spellcheck offline
• Ernst page 26 ref lost (look back in talk and in diffs. There was a Ernst page 26 reference that I had, I think in conservation, that was disappeared (this is different from the Ernst 22-33 ref).
• parentheses 30 in Gamble ref. Has something to do with the date of the paper (figure out)
• Fix AL FG ref, 31. (not sure what is issue)
• Some of (my) refs with day-month-year dates insead of converse.
• ref format for family

Nice to do:

• family discussion (just wonder under Tax if there should be some mention of the parent family of turtles. We mention it in lead after all. maybe a sentence describing about what it is in words (NA freshwater turtles, "pond turtles", what? (maybe we know by now). Perhaps right before we get into the slider-cooter 1960s tax controversy (I assume they are in same family?)

• Yes, I feel like this is important as well. I will include something and add a definitive source (SunCreator has found several very recent ones on the taxonomy of this family).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideas I had, but probably not worth worrying about:

• blown up map for PNW (show all the geography and popuylation details for endangerment)

If this ever gets done, would do it for the longer article, not main one.TCO (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Will get right on this list. Just one more thing before you go: there are two refs in the new material added that need to be cleaned up (large red letters saying citation error, can't miss it). Just an html thing probably, not saying they were formatted wrong or anything. New section looks great and I'll give it a grammatical once over for you. Come back to us when you can TCO!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the Alabama ref crap. And you did cut a reference. Grr. We should have one "AL FG comm", and then three instances of "AL FG". Let me try reloading all three manually. give me ten, please.

I think I see where the problem is (different thing, but it is causing a nesting error.) Stay clear, I need to revert and then open up the patient.TCO (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha...okay. The only one I touched was the Al FG one, which I just cut an pasted to another spot in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it. Stress over. :) TCO (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a nested set of screwups. And then there were some, that didn't even show as screwups, until I got the ones before them. All my fault. Funny how they interlink though. Had a bunch where I missed the training / on named refs. And then a couple where I somehow called Gamble Gervais. and then on sneaky one where I messed up and said Gamble 2004 instead of Gamble2004. Whew. Bleh.TCO (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what is doing the (30) also. Think I entered day of the month where it says date, but field gets date maybe. Will work on...TCO (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Feeling guilty for the length of the sections I wrote :(

I think both Conservation and Capture should be edited down to a third of their current sizes. We don't need the state by state litany of creel limits. We don't need a long paragraph of basking versus hoop traps. We can cut some of the general turtle context blathering. Those places a paragraph could become a sentence. For the general reader, easier to ingest the meat without the added spinach.

Doing this would also allow dropping the subordinate section headers. I could see a revised structure like this:

Interaction with humans

• Conservation
• Uses
  • Pets
  • Other uses
  • Capture
• Culture

(note that our TOC is limited to show 2 or 3 equals, so the sections below Use, don't impact the TOC length)

Would like to keep a subpage for each of those two sections. Interested reader can click to them and the work is not "lost". The FA judges on the main page, so it's not like one has to keep the subpages as beautiful. And while they judge on the main page, I think the presence of the subpages helps us sneakily if there is any concern about our rigor.

I realize this is more work and don't have time to help on it for a while (least a week or two). But I think it would spiff the page up, however we get it done.

I think that, plus an anal copyedit (spellcheck offline, check every ref for format, sentence by sentence look for effective structure, make sure the writing (at least within a paragraph) is consistent in tense and number), would basically get it to where we feel that the page is our best effort. IOW, imagining that we had no review and were dependant on ourselves to make it perfect. I'm sure the critics will find extra stuff, but it will be easier on them to help if the thing is already top notch, so they can really probe, vice find a lot of stuff. And I'm sure having it spiffy will help in terms of the reaction.

TCO (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have more a time a little later on (about a week or so), so I'll go through it in detail than. The new content is great but in some places it's a little too specific. I wil work through and drop notes here before I make any major changes (will 'fix' grammar as I go [don't know if it will fix it or hurt it with my grammatical skills]). :-P--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I think it needs Capture and Conservation need a a rewrite to be about 30-50% as long. Cut or severly limit the intro "context" paragraphs about general turtle issues. Change the state by state crap to be a sentence not a paragraph, summarizing that states allow recreational taking with a fishing license. Cut the basking trap stuff to be a sentence or two, not five. Where-ever else you want to cut or can really justifiably summarize, vice showing detail. probably a lot of sentences in Conservation that could be become phrases (sort of how you had it before.) Can dump the old pages into user space or make subpages, whatever you think best helps the cause. Feel free to improve the grammar and syntax. If you have a question, look it up in a grammar or writing book, or ask a question over at MOS talk page. Be bold...I need to stay away from this stuff for at least a week. TCO (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a little free time. Will see if I can trim the fat and keep the meat.TCO (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

slimmed down capture section

I cut the capture section in half. Will keep more detail on a subpage (similar to how Lion was handled). I think this helps the cause, best. Also, pesky subections and quotes are gone now, but preserved in subpage.TCO (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, keep the subpage. Sorry I haven't swept the new material yet, today or tomorrow for sure (just got home).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

picture size

Been playing around with picture size after reading advice on Giano's "how to FA" essay that making some pictures bigger really helps sell an FA. Just something to think about. Feel free to play with yourself and/or revert them all to small size. I guess was kinda thinking we have a lot of numbers and population descriptions and the like, so that some bigger pictures might be the sugar to make the medicine go down. Just something to play with!TCO (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors can set the size of images in appearance tab of 'my preferences'. If the image doesn't use the thumbs option then those who have set another size may complain it's either to big or to small. Exception is the taxobox image which is not a thumb. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The default size that people surf on must be pretty darned small then! And I bet more than 90% of the people reading wikipedia articles do not have a profile set to change the size from default. But I don't want to mess up our chances for a star. If others hate the look, of course we change back.TCO (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Image size is something to consider, but it won't make or break us. 'Play around' at will! --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

added family and subfamily content

Per talk page discussions, I added a little on the parent family (and subfamily!) that our little guy finds himself in. Kinda been bugging me that we have a factoid in the lead, that was not in the body. I also expanded the thought just a bit. Think our lead is fine (like how we set it up), but just wanted a little more detail and "so what" for the reader in the body. Seems like the content even connects to the next paragraph about slider-cooter controversy, so nice thought "thread" for the reader.

Of course, if I glitched up the logic, please fix. Also, the reference might need upgrading (and formatting, haha!) I just grabbed what was on the other wikipage, but I heard you have a better one, SunC. (Back to paid work rest of the day.)TCO (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

offline spellcheck

I did an offline spellcheck. Was having a hard time getting it to work until I pasted unformatted text into word (somehow normal pasting made it html and then word checker didn't work right). I ended up keeping the edit window open for the article while I had the text in Word. Also had a dictionary in front of me (Word dictionary not always reliable) and even googled on a couple tricky ones. Anyhow, found about 10 errors. Just sharing in case it helps others or others have suggestion on how to do this most efficiently. Was giving me a hard time at first, but now can whip out fast. Useful last check before going into FAC.TCO (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many times I use Firefox for such a task as it has an inbuilt US spell checker when you edit text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm even lazier: I let the wikignomes cleen up mi miztakes.  :-P--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I want clean haircuts and spitshined boots when we go in front of the general(s)  :) TCO (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think every mistake was from me, BTW, and there were like 15 of them, when I did the sweep.TCO (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen's not that bad for this size of an article (I'm a little subconscious that I left that many after reading the article a million times...haha). Are you ready for FAC?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are close. And I'm not scared of those guys. That said, I would really like to buckle down and focus on it for a day or two, first. Nothing major at all. No fear. Just want the time, to grab a grammar book and kind of look at the thing, rule by rule, almost. Even just as an exercise for me (but you get the benefit). Maybe make a new section for stray tasks. I know of at least two, which I would totally love if you did instead of me. We've had these little lists, at times, but I want to have one final one (as I know we did not finish them all off at the time).

P.s. My contract work did not come through.

Fine by me, no rush. What two things are still irking you?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think some of our refs still have different date formatting.
• Spotcheck a couple Gervais refs and see if the pagination worked right (I know we had a handoff). Might be hunky dory, but I'm worried. Just imagine you were the FAC and doublechecking us. Check a couple and make sure we got that right.

Sure thing, these two things in addition to what's discussed in the following section will be cleared up between now and tomorrow. I really see no other problems...it's almost like we've already done the FA review. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Can you make a flipped version of the basking turtle (sorry).  :)

2. OK. I will get off my ass and get everything I want done on the article. Will give up my plan to read an entire grammar book and check every rule. I think that would take months. You have been through so much, let's get this thing into the process. Give me until end of day tomorrow. I really don't think I have many more changes, but I want the chance to read it from front to back. Also, want to go through the talk pages and see if there were any of these little stray tasks (and at my soapbox) that are still outstanding. I'll put a note on here when I'm ready to pull the trigger and then you can do the formal nomination with the powers that be. Too tired now. Bed time.TCO (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would like to co-nominate with you, but I'm unsure how to do this officially (if we even can). Would you like to?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if allowed. Otherwise, I will support you during the review commenting (and fixing!), regardless.

I think you (or I) just mention in the lead that one or the other is a co-nominator than, after the review (if it passes), wikicredit is officially given to both of us by the FA overseer. SunCreator would know more about than I do though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A fourth thing is that some of the refs are out of order now. I will try to get as I copyedit, but feel free to fix in sections where I don't have the tag on.

Reference #4...

...needs reformatting. It can probably be replaced by Fritz, but if you want to keep it I can just run it through the ref generator.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disregard that last post...I just read what's above. Our truly epic turtle taxonomy source can be used here, will get on that (if you're cool with the change TCO?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead, boss. Let's pad this thing back up in references. Lost a few when I skinnied the content down.TCO (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, sure thing. This will be finished by tomorrow as will my scan of the (not so new) material. :-P --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Most common state reptile

I've added another source that lists the state reptiles.TCO (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Ec)It seems to be WP:SYNTH as no one source makes the claim. I've looked for a source myself but only found lists. 'Most common' seems puffery to me, even if factually correct. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. To me, it's like noting how many states start with the letter M. That is in front of you.

2. Also, when something truly IS distinctive, it is important to point it out. Noting that Russia is the biggest country or Everest the highest mountain or Kodiak the biggest bear are helpful and relevant things to know.

3. Added another source. It's hardcopy, real book, real author, for money publisher, not just a website. Still just lists them, but it's a quality list, not some website from some dinky company.TCO (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The book source of 2002 is out of date(as no Colorado until 2008 and no Illinois until 2005) so it would therefore appear(can't view it all in Google books) to show two American alligators(Louisiana, Florida) and two painted turtles(Michigan,Vermont) - so doesn't support the claim of most common. The Netstate URL list is not likely a reliable source and not dated either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well when we write up the list to a featured list, we are obviously going to remark on the most common animal, on any animals that there is more than one of, on how many turtles there are versus lizards. And it will be perfectly normal prose to put at the top of that featured list (in the prose section). And no one would look at us twice to want to source the numbers when all we are doing is describing the list. I really think the same applies right now.

But do what you want to resolve the concern. (It's fine, man. I just need to go to other tasks to finish this thing.) If you cut the comment, please pull it out of both the lead and the body, so we are consistent.TCO (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing any more, just sharing, FWIW. But look at the last line of Northern cardinal. (I'm not saying they source it, btw, just that they find it significant how many states have it.)

I cut the offending claims.TCO (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello. I think the editors here are getting ready to make this an FAC. The only thing I noticed at first glance was that you'll need to replace hyphens with en dashes for ranges (numbers, dates, etc.). You can see some examples in the notes, e.g, in page ranges in notes 1, 40, 45, 47, 53.

On a side note, you'll want to start archiving discussions on this talk page. It's over 264kb now. Once a page hits 100kb, it's getting too big under normal circumstances.

Best of luck! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

• We will archive talk as soon as we get done (in hours, I hope).
• I thought the damned conversion templated used en-dashes. I guess we need to stick en dashes in the conv template (can we)? I confuse, my eye can not tell the difference of a hyphen and an en dash.TCO (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that the cite templetes don't automatically provide en dashes. Unless there's a shortcut that I don't know about, they have to be manually inserted. I have trouble seeing the difference between hyphens and en dashes when I'm editing. The difference usually becomes clearer in the final markup, but your browser may handle them differently and allow you to see the difference while editing.

There are a few instances in the article itself that should be corrected also, but for the most part it's grammatically correct as far as the en dashes go. However, It'll have to be 100% to make it through as an FA candidate. These are little things that GA reviewers will let pass that will hold up things at the FAC page. You're on the right track though! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don't know how to format en-dashes so I'm hoping some nice person can go through the article checking for accuracy with regard to their use. Again, thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll make a list of tasks (start another penalty box) and put it towards the end. If we don't get a helper, we'll just do it manually by opening the article and using the edit find for all the hyphens and overpastin en-dashes (where they belong, since there are hyphens that need to stay also!)TCO (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll get this thing done before the year changes. I'm like a dog with a bone now.TCO (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good friend.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CEs to description section

Not gonna capture every style edit, just the ones I'm worried about drifting back.

• We had some repetition of specifying shell length as opposed to just giving lengths. I cut that and added a note. We need to be consistent and note will help us.

• I am using a standard format of sharing the more technical terms, but not repeating them throughout the article. I think this is right balance of info with readability. We have a huge amount of technical info (like population distributions and the like) and no need to "carapace beat". This is per WP Technical articles. Obviously it is a judgment call, but I'm a scientist and think it is right balance for reader and meeting policy.

• Second paragraph had some sentences where number (the turtle versus the turtles) changed in the middle of sentences. I just changed it to be singular similar to the para before and after. BTW, either is fine, I think, although would avoid shifts within paras. I think "the turtle" is mildly guttier. But in any case, it was just bad grammar disagreement before.

• I changed the 26 cm to a 25. I think it slipped in as a mistake anyhow (Ernst is the ref and is 25 elsewhere). In any case, we need to be consistent, so if someone wants 26 he needs to change it everywhere AND including changing the refs all over the place (to be some 26 ref).

• We had one "from" preceding a ranging dash. Can't do that. Dash replaces both the from and the to.

• The midland turtle description was confusing and inconsistent with the article on the top shell. It listed a fainter top stripe than the eastern, but we already say the eastern was faint and sometimes absent. I went and looked at like 4 different sources. This is one of these things, where the turtles are hard to distinguish anyway and then differe even within their non-intergrading range. I just made it simple and went with the approach of the ref 25 (added to that part) and just emphasized the bottom shell. This fortunately helps with the earlier pics relevancy and plays well versus western and all.

TCO (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Last CEs on Distribution

Pretty clean. Just got a few number agreements and tightened up the style. Only thing of note is I added back the "Range header". If you leave it off, it's incorrect, because, that para that is about current range, does not serve as an introduction to the paras on fossils and pop distribution and habitat. Since the concepts are at same level of thought heirarchy and just different topics grouped into the span-breaker of Distribution, need to show it that way. No need for a topic like this to have an intro paragraph to the four topics as they ideas don't have a strong theme connecting them. Just some commonality to group them into the category. BTW, this is fine per MOS, per outside writing, and per recent animal FA examples.TCO (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CEs in Food chain

Just couple sentences rewritten for flow and maybe one grammar change.TCO (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CE Behavior

Just style changes to tighten and strengthen. Small changes.TCO (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

blank spaces between images, sections, etc

If you have a single blank link between a section header and the next header or text or a picture (also can have a blank line below the picture), it does NOT give any extra blank lines into the page in normal view. General trend I'm hearing is that it is better to keep these blank lines as it is hard to edit in edit view with all the markup in the way all the time. Separation helps. There's no "rule", just nice to do.TCO (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes keep them, easier on the eyes in edit mode.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Going with mid summer, not mid-summer

I actually researched this. Hyphens are tricky and there is a lot of evolving and concurrent variation of usage, for joining, separating, or hyphenating. That said, both my grammar book and said googling indicated that "mid summer" was better than mid-summer. Mid-July would be correct though. The rule is to hyphenate when it is a capitalized word.

P.s. Not trying to push anythin, just explaining, so it does not look like an error.TCO (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the worst hyphen/en-dash user on wiki, so whatever you say is what we'll go by (plus you researched it). :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nesting for NYM

I'm trying to straighten this section out in terms of being completely clear to a reader. I've been studying these turtles now, but explanation just lacks a couple things.

Please reread ref 64 (or better, point me to where I can read it). Need to know:

1. We talk about temp of the female's body for nest prep, but then say if weather is not right she delays egg laying. I don't understand. Does she delay egg laying with nest done, or delay nest construction. Are you sure temp is for nest making, not egg laying? Also, what would be wrong with temp (too cold to hit the right temp or too hot, or rainy or what) to delay her?

Found it. From Ernst 2009 page 201: "The total nesting time may take four hours, and if the day is warm, turtles may nest later in the evening."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And from Ernst 1994 page 290: "Females may not oviposit if nesting conditions are not suitable. Hot weather and drought have delayed nesting for as long as three weeks during some years in Virginia."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like in VA, that they would be waiting for the night to cool off.TCO (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, they usually lay their eggs after noon anyways (to avoid the hottest part of the day), but they may lay them much later than noon if it's really hot.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Do we PLEASE have anythin else about the actual egg laying? NOt clutch sizes, but how they slide out of her body? How long it takes her? What hole they come out of? We should have more on how the things POP OUT. Look how much we discuss digging. I want to know about the slime, the grunting, the afterbirth, the pain the crying, the joy of childbirth! I mean digging is fun too, but we are biologists, right. Mystery of life...

It seems to me like this information would be best served in the turtle article. I assume it's the same orifice for all turtles. I've been doing some digging (in books, not dirt), and I can't find anything really unique to painted turtles in this regard (I'll check all Ernsts again to see if she positions herself a certain way).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Oh and how is she situated wrt the nest? She kinda halfway dug into he hold (back underground)? Or is it just an open pit, that she drops eggs into. And does she do any covering up of the nest aftwerwards?

4. "The female can lay five clutches per year, but two is the norm,[64] and 30–50% of a population's females do not produce any clutches in a given year. In some northern populations no females lay more than one clutch per year.[64" This is still confusing to me, mathematically. Let me nail it to the ground. the max five is OK. "Two is the norm", what does that mean? Is that for the overall population, averaging out the fertiles ones and the non participators? Or is that for the 50-70% who have a clutch at all? (which by my sixth grade math, would about mean that there is a clutch per female, if you assume 50% not participating and 2 clutches for participators)?

Good catch. I looked back at the source and the '2' and '5' are for all painted turtles. In a given population, the average female will produce two clutches per year. Adjust the text to reflect this please.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I'll fix this, but we need clear paragraph breaks by topic. Not glomming couple nest sentences with couple egg sentences in the same para. There is plenty enough content to organize the paras so we don't mix things that way. This is actually kind of a long section on some less stirring biological content (no kill or be kill or turtle copulating) so we need to make sure prose shines so reader will not just ignore it. Predators it's kind of listy, but the topic is so cool people will want to read!  ;)

Final, final, final list of "to dos" for FAC. Everything goes here!

Please add any other todos in this section. And work on them and scratch them out. Let's make this the last, last list!

• A sentence describing the webbed/clawed feet would be welcome. (PS> I've been reading elsewhere). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC):That would be cool. Do you have any online source that says anything on this? I can't seem to find anything that isn't about all turtles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I found some stuff. It's common to a lot of amphibious turtles, but worth mentioning for ours. A lot of other sites do. I'll get something up. gotta ref load, probably.TCO (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source I could draft something up (since you may be getting tired of looking at this darn page :-P). After something is put in I think we can submit for FAC.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NYM, I know this is taking long. Give me an hour and then you can pull the trigger. I have a picture and refs and everything. This is what happens when you send me out into the Internet. I think you will like it and I kinda am halfway through. Will only be a sentence or so of text, but I need to do the Commons and all. Please wait, just a tad longer to pull the trigger.TCO (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, don't rush, I'm in no hurry, honestly.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's coming, boss. Had a file conversion issue, but I adapted and overcame like a Marine.TCO (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha...whenever your done you can nominate it, you deserve it. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Still coming. I will get the nom in. Feel free to sleep. We will co-nom. I honestly do not think I did more than 50% of the work, would tell you if I had. If they make us name one only, I would prefer you to take it as the "good cop". I can still support discussions and fixes. But I will try for the co-nom, first.TCO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the picture. Info is great too. We can definitely co-nom, I just don't know if it requires anything more than us simply putting both of our names up there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You showed me a ref a while ago that talked about chromosomes in turtles. They DID vary, but then a lot had 50. Could you please dig it out. Was in talk maybe? We are going to hit 150. I need that ref to support a claim, I know we had it. Not just padding. Honest, boss.TCO (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh...and a "general ref" on the philtrum as well. I want all three of those right after the colon in my new paragraph (the long sentence). I have one showing he general webbed feet already. Help, boss.TCO (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a chromosome ref.

Chromosome stuff was Ernst 1994 page 276: "The akryotype is 2n - 50: 26 macrochromosomes (16 metacentric, 6 submetacentric, 4 telocentric) and 24 microchromosomes ; however, DeSmet reported 24 macrochromosomes and 26 microcromosomes."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Philtrum stuff was Ernst 2994 page 277: "Chrysemys picta has an upper jaw notch bordered on each side by a toothlike cusp."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I want a source that talks about philtrums in GENERAL in turtles (or aquatic ones, close relatives, etc.). Basically we are calling out some features that are interesting to know about the turtle, but not picta distinctive (chromosomes, webbed feet, and philtrum). I already had webbed feet. I got the general chromosome source. Was 263 (you gave me in talk before). Trying to find a good one for philtrum.TCO (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

264 may have been for a different source. I think the painted turtle's philtrum is unique in this regard, otherwise I don't think Ernst would have pointed it out. Here's a bog turtle's (cute little) face: [1]. It's philtrum looks a little different.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I will move the philtrum comment then to where we have distinctive stuff, and then we are complete.TCO (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• make and upload a mirror image basking photo.

I think SunCreator can do this (as far as copyright laws are concerned). I don't know how.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a Commons account. Let me work on this one. You get all the refs on range and diet and we are done.TCO (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Used that tool, that SunCreator used (see file history), very nifty.TCO (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• check that all claims that need a ref have one.

I think we're okay in this regard as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

let me just swing through. I know all our work is referenced, but sometimes I have moved stuff around and so the citation ought to be at the end of a paragraph or sentence and isn't. Just a case of moving it a little further back. Let me look. You know they will.TCO (talk)

Oh yes they will. One I noticed was at the end of the first paragraph in range (dispersed population in US southwest).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Check locations of refs make sense. There may be some midsentence ones in sentences with no concluding ref (from when I was cutting and pastin your original writing) that could go to end of sentence. I will fix Capture when in there.
• Fix long citation lists (esp Capture).

• non-breaking spaces (seeing issues already)

For this one, do you mean between paragraphs?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Stuff with the percents or degrees or the like. It's a clerical thing like the en-dashes. It's just a little detail, but let's check we pass muster. I don't know the exact rules of when needed, but will look it up (or you can) in the MOS.TCO (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look it up and learn the rules.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Researched it a bit and now I understand. Do you think something like "100,000 to 11,000 years ago" would need one?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I hit all the ones except 'millions of years' (there were several) and ones in the section your ce-ing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of that section now. Gut feel is yes between 11,000 and years, no on 100,000 and to. You know more than me, now, though. I have to look at the rules. Good man!TCO (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, will finish up and strike when done. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got them all. And good work with Gervais. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• TCO finish final CE.
• Answers to TCO content questions on nesting (at a minimum clarification of what Ernst says, ideally the added info on actuall egg pooping out). Is there a wiki article on this maybe? for turtles in general?
• Incorporate new info on birthing.
• Others review final changes (discuss, revise, etc.)

• fix ref 4. (Taxonomy for family)

[Here's a reformat of the one used: <ref> {{cite web | url = http://emys.geo.orst.edu/cgi-bin/singlespecies.plx | title = EMYSystem Species Page: Chrysemys picta | accessdate = 2011-01-01 | date = 2000 | publisher = The Terra Cognita Laboratory}}</ref>. Didn't want to put it in because you're hard at work] :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• fix IUCN and ref issue: Figure out what's up with its IUCN rating (least concern? Sources say different things)

Global Heritage Rank has them at 5 (good). Also, this may have to do with the subspecies kerfuffle or something. Lots of times there is sort of a political driver for calling a subspecies a species as it gets protection then. Donno though. I wonder if useing the latest taxonomy stuff is affecting that designation. Since we use a wait and see on the Starkey debate, this may affect what we use on the IUCN rating. Donno...totally speculating.

Once you figure out the IUCN, might need a sentence in Conservation if there is one of the rating agencies that has the turtle more threatened. Also, you might check while you are in Gervais and see if she covers IUCN (is a review paper, so she might have a comment).TCO (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Current says "Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)" problem with this is that the reference says "IUCN: Not listed/Least concern (1996). TFTSG draft 2010:Least concern". Checking on the redlist and you'll find it's not listed. . With "(IUCN 3.1)" - the 3.1 part means actually means it's done since 2003, but the reference we have says 1996. So the 3.1 and the reference don't match we want to say 2006 somehow, but I can't work out how. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a way to say IUCN 2.3 which is in the 1996 time frame. Issues fixed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I put a clause about it in conservation.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Check the Gervais pagination that the pages really are correct and have the info. Spotcheck.

Ref #91, citation b, concerning salmonella and poor genes, I couldn't find this in the source. Reference 86, page 36 of Gervais, I don't see this info (exactly in the way it's used in the article). Reference 87, citation c, didn't see road sign stuff on page 34. That's it, all others check out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes to read the content. I think some (other refs) may have moved, or it has to do with wether we tagged stuff in the sentence or at the end.TCO (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed the first one. Added the "IN FG pet" ref, which covers diseases. I think salmonella is main one and have seen it elsewhere, but IN says diseases, so generalized which is fine. Also, wikilinked later to salmonella as we lost the wikilink. Also, checked if ordering affected for the other instance of IN FG pet ref, and it was not. On genetics, gervais adresses this towards the end of the page, so that ref only covers the genes part. On to the next one.TCO (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

removed second Gervais ref, and went and inserted a better ref to prove the claim.

• ref date formatting (some still seem different, scan all of them)

[ones I've noticed, pleas fix as template is up: 24, 91, 112-116, 119, 123-126, please fix TCO, we'll worry about dashes afterwards]--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

dude, I need the help. Am humping. Please go ahead and edit in the sections I'm not in and just make this task your baby. Nail it!TCO (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got them all. Look good (don't know about dashes though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You killer! I can do the dashes. Just get all the refs. Like check Gervais. Etc.

Right, he's next (I love ctrl+f function!)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• ref ordering, some out of order numbers

I'll do this one, what needs to be fixed, citation ordering? i.e. something like [74][65][98]?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any problems with this. Will strike for now and fix any stragglers along the way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the bot that wandered in, fixed them all. They were of the sort you mentioned.

• n-dash, hyphen patrol (manual is fine, if we don't get a script weenie).

Ask User:Malleus Fatuorum to stop by, he use some dash script. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• archive the talk page

Will be archived in next 24 hours. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a bulleted line item 100% done, please be bold and cross off so we see progress. If it is only 99% done, don't cross off though.TCO (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I crossed off the whole editorial section at the top. I think given my rewrite along with NYM's content clarification, we have enough. If we ever get more on the "egg pooping out" we add it then. but it reads FA good enough now.

Okay, this is like the only thing Ernst doesn't go into incredible detail on (otherwise I would have included it). I'll continue to check sources for anything new that can be incorporated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a danger of being too Ernst-reliant. I really think we hit it well enough though so that the reviewers won't flag it, here. But a thought for you in the future, just in terms of really driving for the best ultimate work product.TCO (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE for Reproduction

egg-laying and growth are pretty long and pretty dry. I did a lot of work stylistically to improve the prose. Really need "brilliance" in that section, given no sex (after mating) or killing is going on. Just going to put the main things. I was in there a lot. Should be same story, but better told.

• Overnight is one word, not two, as an adverb.

• delinked menstrual cycle and left a comment. It is pointless to link to that crappy mammalian article and there is no good other one. Changed wording to reproductive cycle, which is fine. Given we can't define the fancy term more.

• added a link to the wiki article on heteropaternity.

• Nesting: cut almost all the nominalizations. Better to have a real actor "the turtle" versus a concept "the process". Compare "we struggled" with "the process was difficult".

• Organized the paras to get like concepts with like and keep a narrative. REally need to have a clear, flowing story here. Not a stray collection of wiki sentences glommed together.

• Added some clarification on the numerics and the timing from pushing NYM. Still wish we had something on how the eggs roll out the back hatch and if she covers the nest after laying.

• Little structuring in Growth (moved some content down and broke a para). This section not as off as Egg-laying.

TCO (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE conservation

Nothing big and had just revised this. Found a few places to trim fat, but then had to expand on the Gervais sentence as it was really too complex an idea to be clipped about. Amazing how off my commas are when I go back and really look for them.TCO (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, and I noticed a few comma splices along the way as well. About Gervais, I've compiled a list (hand written) of ones that need page number tweaks, I'll do it all in one fail swoop once your ce is finished.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I didn't finish whole article today.

I am going to just get the CE done, tonight. Then I feel like I'm really all over the writing (and someone needed to be a central person to do that). We can tweak things I missed or broke and get the refs and dashes and all. And I will watch over all the diffs and make sure we don't backslide (or we talk over and all).

Think we could pound out the refs and dashes tomorrow, but I don't think we get every line item done tonight.

Happy New Year, slugger!TCO (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, yeah, I think we can finish and submit for FAC by tomorrow night. After the ce I'll go through and check/fix all Gervais citations. I'll also look through some sources and see if I can find more on egg laying.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE Uses

Should be minor changes only for style.TCO (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

A few comments.

The lede seems quite good. As a summary of the article, you seem to have captured all the major elements, at least in the quick look that I gave it.

Excessive inline citations seem to put off some Wikipedians. For example, you have two statements supported by 6+ references in the "Capture" section. I would not suggest reducing the number, especially if something is likely to be challenged. However, I have seen some suggest reducing the number of references. But you put the work in to find the references right? What I did in this situation for my first FAC (Sentence spacing) was to consolidate numerous references into a single inline citation, separated by semicolons. The result is one inline citation in the body text, which points to numerous references in the endnote. You don't need to consolidate your references for it to be an FA. Just be prepared for this comment.

I did not check the MoS regarding how you split up/labeled your notes and endnotes. I'll just offer a possible alternative in the FA Clemuel Ricketts Mansion. You may find this version cleaner. Or you may not. Just another option from a current FA.

Finally, I recommend you handle the issues that you know need to be resolved. Then go ahead and nominate it. There will be things you have to address no matter how much you try to get it to 100% FA quality. The FAC reviewers will let you know and you'll have a chance to make changes. Good luck! --Airborne84 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

References and citations are always touchy. Clemuel Ricketts Mansion does have good formatting, but it has no notes, so I think here, since we have them, we should use the subheadings 'notes' and 'footnotes'. I also like that the references for our anchored works link down to them. This is only really because there are so many, and some have the same author. Thanks for your help and if I misunderstood you or didn't fully get what you said please let me know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what they did with notes now. Either way, but it might require a fair bit of work to change it now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yeah, I will definitely do what you are saying on the Capture section. That was on my, not written down, but worruing about it, list. You may have helped me extremely there. Just need to figure out the mechanicsl, but should not be that bad.

2. I prefer the look of the Ricketts notes sections. Little slicker. Footnotes is a little imprecise. REally our notes are more like footnotes. Only think is I prefer the term citations to references (as there is a bibliographic list as well)

3. Sorta related to 1, there are also a few areas where I was pretty brutal about putting notes right a nouns within sentences. NOt sure if thaat is needed or not. It's the moust sourcey traceable, but I'm sure they look better after a period.TCO (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CE Culture

No big change that I think anyone will worry about. Just firmed up the thought into more of a theme. Past and present. Government and private. I like it. Little better than just wikiglomming factoids. Will read well.TCO (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamble communication (finished off)

Tony Gamble wrote back to wrap up.

• He does not want to release the "diagram". Thinks he probably "could", but would rather not as issue not clear. No biggie, we are fine. And probably don't want to have even a rightfully free image, if at all contested.
• No updates in Minn other then what was done in 2002. No more studies, news, restrictions (other than maybe something minor wrt eggs). Basically, it is business as usual up there.
• Was unaware of any studies or publications on the effect of occasional taking of painted turtles by individuals, but his opinion would be no impact, given the harvests are so much more intense anyhow.

(no impact or change for us, just sharing the wrapup.)

TCO (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Shame we didn't get that photo, would have been a great addition to an article already full of superb images. We're almost there everybody!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is nice to have different types of images, not all photographic. That said, one we have is painted turtle specific and ties well to the text. After picta (and a rest), I might go get diagrams of the different traps and write an article. There is a company that makes them and I could ask them for some images. Low priority, though.TCO (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be nice, I'm compiling a mental list of articles that need creating after wikiproject turtles gets created (which will be soon incidently).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

reference check

(easier to discuss this in a new section)

I went and did a pass through and found some places where I would like us to put specific references. (probably my fault for moving sentence order around, to imrpove prose.) I can sometimes guess what ref would cover the area, but I want to list them here as you have the Ernst books and I do not.

Description

• let's put a specific ref at the end of the sentence about the "streak". It is probably 18. Just will make more sense, since that para has a lot of different things referenced and the setnence after might or might not be from same source. So let's label each.

Got it, Ernst 1994 p. 276.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Distribution-range:

• I think 24 needs to move up to the end of the first paragraph. I can put a better ref (PA FG or Conn on the second para to prove the claim about co-occurrence.

I put one here, the webpage has a map which reflects the thought of that sentence.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the comment about co-occurence. I do remember seeing it somewhere, but it was just a state site or such. Probably PA as marginata is "moving in" on picta there. I think intergradation is the more significant issue for fuzziness. Just looked at some primiary literature and it was all emphasizing intergrades and couldn't find stuff on co-occurrence. I want a couple better refs for that fuzzy comment. Will add. HAven't started the pictyre yet.  :(TCO (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by co-occurrence (overlap of subspecies?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like having different distinct subspecies in the same pond. Like different races of people in the same country as opposed to only mixed-race people. I sorta read that somewhere else at one time. I just did a pretty good search and looked at histograms in primary literature and that is not the way it works, in general though. Intergrades dominate, rather than co-occurence. Didn't get enough to really write a para on it, but instead am adding a few refs and a thought or two on intergradation. It will help that sentence/para anyhow to develop it more. Give me 30 mins.TCO (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The only thing left is SunCreator's most recent comment. Do you have any source that discusses feet anatomy?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Dim memory of seeing it or hearing about it, but right now, don't even know exactly what he wants. Try google or google scholar. There is a HUGE amount of primary literature on picta since it is so easily studied and all. You'll get a paper. Probably even one that is readable right off the web. Let me get the intergrade done.TCO (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Need a ref for the end of the eastern subspecies para (probably 29).

Carr page 215 had it (not in words, but his map backs what we say). Odd that no Ernst book had it...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Curious that 29 is not listed for the western para (if it covers it, would like to add it as well so one ref covers all. but only if it really talks about it. 8 could stay if it's adding something.)::I added ref 15, (WCSU species) for each para (looking at it, it has range info for each subspecies and was already on some paras and in the header. Will leave the other extra ones as they gave some more info, but I think it is better to have at least on central ref that supports each range as is said in leadin para. Also, I'm done with the intergrade stuff. I think just claws and photo flipping, now.TCO (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That should be it. BTW, there are a few places where we have a ref (same one and only one) repeated in a paragraph and on some sentences, but not all. Could probably get away with just using it at the end of the para. My inclination is to leave as is, but if you want me to spiff this up, let me know and will do so.

Yes, I noticed this as well. I left them as is only because a lot of things were getting moved around, so I didn't want a sentence to lose it's citation. After FAC, if we pass, I can remove redundant ones.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

References section

I thought about it and your way of putting all the note "stuff" in one References section, with subheadings is nice. Like to stick with that, vice how that other guy had it. I would like to make one change (will do so, just explaining first). I don't like the term "footnote". Technically, it means a note at the bottom of a page of paper text and may be citing a source or be explanatory, both or either depending on usage. I think it is kind of inexact to refer to it when writing on the web. Is it really a footnote because at the bottom or an endnote because at end. Probably functionally it is more like an endnote. Also, it seems strange to say note, then footnote, as your notes could very well be footnotes if in a journal article (where citations tend to go to the end and explanatory notes are more likely true footnotes at the bottom of the page). So I want to call them citations. That's what they REALLY are. Citing the literature. No other changes.  :) TCO (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me, just doing what was done with bog, since nobody said anything I assumed it was the most proper thing to do. Change at will. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

nominate it

Please nominate. If you liked my cute write-up, feel free to grab it. I had been scanning the FAC archives and there were comments from reviewers about how people should be more motivational when doing the nomination (to get reviewers to want to review the article).TCO (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, let's scrap something up right here. Perhaps something like: "User:NYMFan69-86 and User:TCO have worked together extensively on this article over the past month to bring it to its current state. The painted turtle is the most abundant turtle in North America and is biologically and culturally important. We have nominated the article because we feel it meets all criteria. Thank you,"

Feel totally free to tare that to shreds, I just wrote it and it's 2:45 in the morning (and please add some of what you had written).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's cool how it is. I thought about mentioning the work put into the preparation, but decided better not to dwell on that. Let the results show. And what I read, they like the direct approach better rather than the "we are nominating because". But, I really don't care, and if you prefer any other opening statement, just go edit what's up there to what you prefer.TCO (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to add you as conom, but glad to see you got it. Well, at least, I know how to nominate something if I ever need to again! Now, I sleep. Good working with you, Metsfan.TCO (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The nom looks good and see you tomorrow (the work has just begun :-P).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. We will be on top of it and comply with needed revisions. I feel good about the level of care and effort and content and all though. We are at least as clean as we could get it on our own.TCO (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a beautiful piece of work regardless. Here's to FA!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

copyright on BC turtle crossing sign

May need to cut this image, because of the copyright for the sign itself.  :( Would replace it with Gervais quotebox that I had before (not as good, but something). (Personally, I think it would fall within fair use, like if I were running a newspaper I would not feel afraid to post photos of road signs, but I know wiki avoids invoking that, so it will probably need to go.) Just waiting a sleep cycle to see if I get any other input. TCO (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It really is a nice image, I hope it can stay. If it can't, the quote-box would be nice in its place.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some good pictures of egglaying in action

Shell subpage. Actually, while it's a great sequence, a lot of the pictures seem grainy. But check out 0720. You can see the egg squeezing out the back of her. It's interesting to think about a general article on nesting and egglaying of picta. There is a huge amount written about nest selection in the primary literature, locations and all that. And could include the whole narrative and all. Not pushing you, just a thought, since we had a long section there, and I come across a lot.

Oh...oh my god...that's so gross!!! No, joking, that's a great picture. Maybe a separate article could be created...I mean if you say there's enough out there (and I would help out of course).  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of article ideas in my sandbox. Low priority. Not sure if it makes more sense in the context of picta or is better discussed as part of the general life cycle of turtles.TCO (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm...curious. Maybe a 'Stages of painted turtle life cycle' or something. Can talk about hatching, maturation, reproduction, and nesting. Just a thought, I'm also unsure about what would work best.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good book on reptiles of New Mexico

See page 102 and it shows the two exact river valleys where picta is seen, in detail. http://books.google.com/books?id=r-Liq4O4udsC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=distribution+and+habitats+of+turtles+in+new+mexico&source=bl&ots=4LOKx0tIWb&sig=rh7assnJIiCnRAGhPh2E_X6vhg8&hl=en&ei=-D8hTev3CoGdlgfem6y0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=painted%20turtle&f=false I've also seen a 1974 article on turtles of New Mexico a lot as well. This book probably has same dope and more updated though.

No action needed, just sharing. When I get headed off into the Internet looking for help in one area, sometimes I find something that helps elsewhere. TCO (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. Also of note, that source says the only U.S. states the painted turtle isn't found in are Nevada and Florida...hmph.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, that pretty much matches our map. Especially give that they mention in California it was introduced (not native) and we cover that.

I liked how they backed up the "extreme" part of the Chihuaha range. Been bugging me to really nail that, and given as they border with it, I feel better using this source to back that up.

plus just figured it might help you elsewhere in the future, if needed. Is really pretty thoughtful book based on my quick scanning.TCO (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it truly is. For turtles that are found in New Mexico, that'll be the first source I use. Thanks for sharing!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

new ref on the western painted turtle status in Canada

Sort of a Gervais for Canada (maybe not quite there, but still). Anyhow, readoing through it now. Probably has relevence to at least the daughter article. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-505-2006E.pdf TCO (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, I remember using a sister source for Wood turtle: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ec/CW69-14-1-2008E.pdf

It was really helpful.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...very much paralell reports. Guess you start to see these patterns.TCO (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be really great if they had one for every turtle in Canada (Spotted turtle I'm hoping).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, been too busy to do any work on the article but you seem to have been busy little beavers in the meantime. I had already cited the COSEWIC report but someone changed it so that it linked to the webpage rather than to the pdf of the report itself. NYMFan, there are COSEWIC reports for all of species at risk in Canada (that is how they get to be species at risk) including all the Canadian Turtles except for Painted Turtles east of BC (which are the only ones not officially at risk. 70.54.10.93 (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great (not that there are that many endangered turtles in Canada but, you know, that there are the papers on them)! And...er...do I know you? :-o --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That was me, but apparently I was signed out when I wrote the comment. There are 8 (used to be 9 before extirpation of Western Pond Turtles) native species of turtle in Canada. Matt Keevil (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

individual discoverers

Can we please discuss (here among us), who discovered and classified the species (and subspecies) first? How did that all go down? Like if we wrote a para on it? For instance was Bell the discoverer of the western subspecies or just honored? I know that even if he did not come to the US, he still might have been the guy who gets credit. He did incredible things with the samples from the Beagle and lots of people (even know) work on samples others have collected.TCO (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the classification is still hairy, I'm a little unclear on it as well. Johann Gottlob Schneider first named it 'Testudo picta' in 1783, than from their the subspecies were identified. This page talks about it:http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cpicta/taxonomicinfo.html. Or, more accurately, lists it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And, on the bottom of that page, you may like the "Museums with Specimens" bit. ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Fritz, 2007 page 176-178. It's a bit cryptic but more details then I can find elsewhere. You can also use Google books with the info there. So for example you ask was Bell the discoverer of the western subspecies or just honored? Well It' was written about by Gray in a section of a publication by Griffith and Pidgeon called Animal Kingdom. baahh.... different book. You maybe able to find it on Google books. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. This can all be hashed out fairly easily now. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how we are talking it through here. Let's see if we can use that reviewer kvetch to push ourselves a notch better (and draft it all, here, before we stick it in), since the whole section has a logical flow to it. I could see some sort of logical story that went in this manner:

• First classified by Schnieder but with different name.
• Then name changed to C. picta by "X", whoever that was, maybe Bell.
• Then the four species classifed by Y. (Or by Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4. Or X and Y and even Bell, may all be the same person.)

But something like the above would be a little para, probaby on its own, at front or maybe conjoined with the family discussion. (That's minor and just depends on how much info we have.)

Actually, we may end up putting this a bit more towards the end of the section. I think right before we talk about the etymolygy. It sorta fits with that, as its not about the animal itself, but about how we as humans have discovered and named it. And it makes more sense to get into it after you know what the subspecies are. But this is a detail. Let's get the para and we can work it out.TCO (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NYM, do you mind to draft a para on this topic and then just put it here for 3 of us to discuss? I need to deal some more this road sign that is now causing commons issues (they don't WANT to delete it!) and then work with some little details that I got on Chihuahua and SW dispersion (removing sand in carapace, teensy upgrades, but helps explain something that might be puzzling, puzzled us at least). It's probably a sentence or two, but will be some work to cite refs and all.

Look at Fritz, 2007 page 176-178, it's to much to summarize here. Key points: First classified as Testudo picta by Schnieder in 1783. Genus changed to Chrysemys by Gray 1844. History with each subspecies. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Capital. I'll go through the sources, come up with something, and post it here by, say, 10:00 p.m. Eastern time. Thanks everyone. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I love you man (but you can't have my Bud Lite.TCO (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmhm...alright, here goes:

"The painted turtle (C. picta) is the only species of Chrysemys, although it was originally described in 1783 by Johann Gottlob Schneider as Testudo picta. The turtle was given its current taxonomic name by John Edward Gray in 1844. The four subspecies were recognized as follows: the eastern by Schnieder in 1783, the western by Gray in 1831, and the midland and southern by Louis Agassiz in 1857.

Now, Schneider first named it Testudo picta, than Gray came along and called it Chrysemys picta...but the taxonomic name is attributed to Schneider. Is there something wrong with this? Is this because he first discovered the species? The few sentences I just wrote can be incorporated in the first paragraph of taxonomy and evolution.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it, but let me put it a little later as a paragraph on its own. It was fine, when it just a one clause parenthetical of one dude, but now that we have fleshed it out, I prefer that we mention it after describing "what" the four subspecies are themselves. Watch the magic...TCO (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing friend, just make sure you don't include repeated information. I stole my first sentence from the first sentence of the section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I kinda would like it before Starkey, right after we discuss how the four subspecies evolved. Than we can say that Starkey rejected the classification of dorsalis renamed it its own species (at least in his head). What do you think (you have an keener eye for organization than I do).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an idea. The thing with this stuff is any org scheme has advantages and disadvantages. You have to pick the one that has most good and least bad, but nothing is perfect. I prefer to leave the glacial theory right before Starky as the latter plays off the former (I have now read the 1950s glacial papers as well as Starkey's 2003, may be adding a ref.) There really is a strong direct connection between the two, you see it if you read the 2003 paper intro. The initial discoverer stuff either belongs at the very beginning or as more of a feature-y afterthought. The latter is how I prefer to play it (similar to the etymology). It's kind of cool, but, not really relevant nowadays. To me, it's "topical". Not pushing, just explaining.TCO (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see that; we explain what the four are, offer someone else's (mildly accepted ideas), than hark back to the system everyone knows and loves. It shall stay.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Kinda get your point a little stronger now. I donno. Think about if you were carving this thing into a few sections. What would you want with what. If you like it better, move it. Serious. Let me work on some refs in the Southwest. I have figured out the scattered distribution, but my head is kinda hurting.TCO (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was agreeing that your way was good.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you were man. If I moved it anywhere, I would move it to closer to the front. (probably second para, and detach a sentence on subspecies to go on first para. Let me cogitate. I think I can actually make all those paras mesh better. It's not just the new one, but also fossils and etymology are a little out of place. Let me think, before we tweak it again.TCO (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. All the information's there, now it's just organization.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

publisher thing

Can you explain what it means to be the publisher of the web citations (so I do it right in the future)? I was just kinda saying an institution in the past, but then in the FAC seems like there is talk about looking at directories or home pages. I'm a little confused and just want to know how to do it next time, so it is right ahead of time.TCO (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no position to give advice, I confuse publishers all the time. I generally look for institutions (as you say)/organizations or the like, but it's not an exact science.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the directions in the cite template too. Asked on the FAC, just so I get it right next time.TCO (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

any more on the evolutionary background of turtles?

I know I asked about this before, but want to try once more. And I just read Starkey and realize that there isn't some perfectly understood evolutionary history of the testudines. But is there any more known about like what was there before the picta? Obviously there was probably some progenitor of sliders and cooters and picta. But is there something named like for humans there is austrolopithicus or whatever? Don't give it to me if it's too junky or too much in debate, but I just want to check and see if there is a little more on the "fossil story". Like if I went to earlier than the 15 million, is there some species that is the obvious fore-runner? Just coming up as I do this rewrite.TCO (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I covered it pretty well, based on the last time I tried squeezing you, and the ref even covers right point, but of course if you come up with a little more dope than that would be great. I'm not too hopeful as even Starkey who advocates an evolution based classification seems to say turtle branching is not well known. But anyhow, if you get anything, should be easy to plug in.TCO (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is great, and I'll continue to search. If I find anything you'll get a note on your talkpage.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorta what we already discuss:http://www.jstor.org/pss/3889448.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it.  :(TCO (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My fault (put the period and two hyphens too close to the URL): http://www.jstor.org/pss/3889448

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We are on the same wavelength or coming up with same stuff in searches. Yeah, I think it's important enough to add that paper as a ref. Bishop and Shmidt (1931) also had a glacial hypothesis, but I think Bleakney was the one wrt hybridizing. So would leave as written, change 1950s to 58 and then right after the comma goes the paper.

P.s. I have been reading Starkey. It is actually a pretty decent paper for surveying who went before. I really don't like his thing though, from the more I read. He comes from a school of thought that says there's no such thing as a subspecies so voila, he nukes the other subspecies. That's not a result of DNA, it's a result of his view of what makes a species. Same with his thing with dorsalis. He doesn't believe in subspecies so voila it must be a full species. But even if it is most different, it still intergrades fine. But the good thing is he wrote the paper so clearly, you can learn from it even if you don't agree. There is also some chromosomal DNA stuff that HAT guy talked about, and I have seen comments from people about them working on it in other sites and stuff, but haven't really seen the published paper. Not sure if not out, or I just haven't seen it.TCO (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're gonna have to pick and choose which viewpoints to mention in the article. Starkey is a little opinion heavy at times but his paper does contain some good information. I think we have enough content to be honest.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we are clean. P.s. Notice that Rhodin is a 2003 coauthor...TCO (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Maybe someday we'll be the next 'Starkey/Rhodin' duo. ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a pretty good source on the exact issue of the forerunner and branching of the picta and relatives. From 1982 and very detailed and on that topic. Backs up the "don't know". Also, Starkey and Ernst seem to also, although you have to read in a little more on them. I think '82 source nails it and nothing we've seen since contravenes it.TCO (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone having major concerns with anything related to that section now. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)