Wikipedia:Peer review/Turtle/archive1

Turtle

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

We've been working on this article for some time. When it was listed for FAC, we had to withdraw for some sourcing problem. We did some cleaning up and would like someone to do a source spotcheck.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important and informative article! I noticed that the infobox said that the turtles had a temporal range starting from the Middle Jurassic Period. However, there seems to be no source for this information, and the section "Internal phylogeny" actually says that "the most recent common ancestor of living turtles, corresponding to the split between Pleurodira and Cryptodira, is estimated to have occurred around 210 million years ago." That was in the late triassic period. How do we define an order of species' temporal range?

Not sure if my comments are helpful. If you have time, could you take a look at the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, which is also under peer review? Thanks! Tommyren (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox refers to fossils and the oldest ones found are in the Jurassic. I'm not a very good reviewer so I can't help you there. Sorry!LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Okay, before we get onto sourcing I need to digest this whole thing (prose size is 37 kb, so plenty of wiggle room in adding/subtracting material)

~~First up, I'd mention that there are 356 species in the lead somewhere, biggest and smallest and global range. Probably some stuff is in too much detail for lead - not sure yet.~~

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be combining Naming and etymology with Systematics and evolution as a Taxonomy and evolution section and have it as first section. In that we need a more robust definition, why is chelonia used if testudines is older. In fact, need mention and reference for these definitions. I might try and add these myself. Gotta hop off and do some real life work for a bit.

For this article. I'd prefer to keep naming and evolution separate. Chap and I have gotten articles passed before with evolution discussed later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - it does get tricky when you have a large evolution section and you really want the description to be up high in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything on Chelonia vs Testudines. Maybe Faendalimas has some information. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Chelonia" from lead but noted below that turtles are also known as chelonians. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is tough if you inherit an article where a previous editor has been problematic with sourcing (the mamba headaches come to mind...). Once content and organisation settled will be time to look at sourcing for final time but will try to look over as we go.

Also, you need to have @Faendalimas: look at the balance of the article at some point. His opinion would be invaluable. I can see some stuff on talk page.

HF

I've been requested to look at source-text integrity, so I'll give that a look. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The word turtle is derived from the French tortue or tortre ("turtle, tortoise")" --> checks out

"The shoulder girdle in turtles is made up of two bones, the scapula and the procoracoid" --> Source doesn't seem to call it the procoracoid, instead referring to the coracoid (although it's hard to tell w/o page numbers given)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"While popularly thought of as mute, turtles make various sounds to communicate" --> More or less supported - (the source specifies that aquatic turtles are popularly thought to be mute)

Added new cite. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Turtles are the only reptiles that migrate long distances, up to thousands of kilometers in marine species" --> supported

" The male scorpion mud turtle approaches the female from the rear, and often resorts to aggressive methods such as biting the female's tail or hind limbs, followed by a mounting" --> supported

"they age very slowly" --> I think this is supported, although a lot of the source simply went straight over my head

"The theory accounted for the evolution of fossil pareisaurs from Bradysaurus to Anthodon, but not for how the ribs could have become attached to the bony dermal plates" - supported

"Modern turtles and their extinct relatives with a complete shell are classified within the clade Testudinata" --> supported

While there were source-text integrity issues detected in the prior FAC, this is looking much better (although I can't access a lot of the sources). Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

As requested, I do another quick check on sources.
There are 356 living species of turtles – I see multiple issues with this sentence.
- First, the sentence only occurs in the lead, it should be properly repeated in the main text as a sentence of its own (the main text only has with 51–56% of all 356 group members considered at risk.
- Second, the source given in the main text states that the number encompasses living and recently extinct species. "356 living species" therefore seems to be just incorrect.
- Third, the same source says that this number (356) is outdated, and updated it to 360 species.

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

with 51–56% of all 356 group members considered at risk – the source says "51.9" and 56.3". If you decide to round these numbers, I think it should be "52–56", not "51–56".

The article states that: "51%–56% of all their modern species Threatened and and nearly 60% Threatened or Extinct, "

OK, missed that sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about 75% of Asia's (terrestrial) turtle species are considered threatened – this again seems to be incorrect. The 51–56% you give above are CR+EN+Vulnerable, but the 75% are "CR+EN", not including the other category. The number you need seems to be 83%, or else you have to state that these numbers are not comparable and measure different things.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The world regions richest in (terrestrial) turtle species are the Amazon basin, the Gulf of Mexico drainages of the United States and parts of South and Southeast Asia. – But the source is explicitly about terrestrial and freshwater species, not solely on terrestrial ones.

This is in reference to non-marine species. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mistake imo, because the article terrestrial animal, your source, and you elsewhere in the turtle article use the same word with a different meaning. I see you now changed to "non-marine", which is ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit frustratingly, this still doesn't look good, I found the first mistake almost instantly, and more and more as I go. Did you try to go through the article sentence by sentence, source by source? This may be a lot of work but it seems to be the only way to get the article ready for FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please try again. I think you are focusing too much on slight word and number discrepancies and look at only two sources. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that correct wording and numbers are important. But OK, I can take another look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

minor comments

and 60% considered both threatened and extinct. – needs to be "threatened or extinct" I think.
The desert tortoises, Gopherus spp. – You link to a species instead of the genus. Also, spp. seems to be too technical for this general article, what about "species of Gopherus", for example?
The demand for exotic pets has led to in increase in illegal wildlife trafficking. – "an increase"?
21 percent – be consistent with "percent" vs % throughout the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Additional source check[reply]

Taiwan imported nearly 200 metric tons of hard-shells from its neighbors from 1999 to 2008 – The source says per year, not the total of the whole decade.

Jens Lallensack I made a mistake. It originally stated "Taiwan imported nearly 200 metric tons of hard-shells every year from 1999 to 2008" but when I went back to read the source again, I missed the small y and changed it. See [1]. It was bad timing.

The army of Ancient Rome used the testudo ("tortoise") formation in battles, especially sieges; – The source does not seem to cover "especially sieges" (and that part seems to have been simply copied from the article Testudo formation). Also, the source is actually a somewhat confusing note pointing to both Tacitus (historical primary source) and BBC school radio. I think that a single, high-quality secondary source would be best here; these surely must exist.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder (sections "Distribution and habitat" and below) seems uncontroversial, though I could access few of the sources used. Nevertheless found two more issues, so I'm still not entirely convinced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "uncontroversial" did you look at more? LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The desert tortoises – that still links to the species, while several species are mentioned in the source.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was believed they were the only surviving branch of the ancient evolutionary grade Anapsida, – this is a bit weak I think. They were thought to be anapsids when the group was still accepted. They still have the anapsid skull (and therefore could still be considered members of the grade). A "surviving branch" of a "evolutionary grade" also does not seem right. All extant reptiles would be branches of that clade.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External phylogeny – All sources in this section are quite old (the most recent is from 2013). But this is a very active field of research. Could do with an update?

Lyson, Tyler R.; Bever, Gabriel S. (2020) review article shows the most recent turtle molecular studies dating to 2014 (and affirm that turtles are close to archosaurs) so the information is updated enough. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now did check a couple more sources and found no further issues (except for the point above). So I would now conclude that the sourcing did improve. However, I could not access many of the sources (in particular, I don't have the books), so my possibilities for spot checking were quite limited. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all the journal articles can be access by Zbooks. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD

Quick comments:

"Turtles are widely distributed across the world's continents, oceans and some islands with terrestrial, fully aquatic, and semi-aquatic species. Sea turtles are mainly tropical and subtropical, but leatherbacks can be found in temperate areas of the Atlantic and Pacific." This is cited to far to broad a page range, covering a fifteen page spread of a general discussion of reptiles. Page 146 seems to cover the main points here, although page 151 better supports the "some islands" part.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pleurodira are all freshwater and found only in the Southern Hemisphere." Needs a tweak to note freshwater is their habitat, not the bodily form.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on the richest areas could again use a more specific page number. I think it's 120?

Giving a specific page number is not standard for journal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's more difficult to do a source check if for each paper, a range of the entire paper is given, rather than the specific page(s) which best handles the cited fact.

Article has quite a few short paragraphs and/or single-paragraph subsections, it is worth considering if some could be merged or perhaps just be included in the main body of the level 2 sections.

I feel like the information in these sections is too specialized to be put together in a leading text. As long as there aren't too may small sections in a row, I think it should be fine. LittleJerry (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why World turtle gets its own subsection outside of In culture.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle racing a bit out of place in a subsection that otherwise deals with uses of dead turtles. Seems more relevant for As pets.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]