Contents

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia: WikiProject AP Biology 2009

This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2009 / Spring 2010 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2009. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration.

This section will serve as a time-line for our class project. Please honor the deadlines.

• Done Deadline: 9/1/09 (Individual)

Create your user account per class instructions. Add your account to the AP Biology 2009 Page under the appropriate group. I'm open to name selection; although some common sense is required as to what is appropriate for a class project.

• Done Deadline 9/4/09 (Individual)

Develop your user "home page". Include some very general information about yourself such as personal interest and long-term goals. The use of images, custom headers, and User Boxes are optional; however, the may serve as good practice in mastering HTML codes and make your presence on Wikipedia more interesting to others. The descriptions on the user page will represent the best of writing practice. Do not revert to informal style and scan carefully for spelling and grammatical errors - no such scrutiny will be applied to discussion / talk pages.

• Done Deadline 9/9/09 (Individual)

Make one edit for improvement that is not over-turned by a revert. It can be on any topic within Wikipedia (except the Croatan Page). Perhaps a grammar/spelling correction or a word substitute that increases clarity. For the bold among us - add additional content. Note the section below entitled "Trivial but definite improvements"; I tried it out and its very addictive; however, watch out for the American and British English spelling differences of the words ...ex. cheque"? - they don't seem to like the letter "Z" and they get their "e" and "r" backwards "centre". Not to criticise? criticize :)

• Done Deadline 9/11/09 (Group)

Submit your topic along with the motivation behind this choice in the sections designated below. Allow for two days of commentary / feedback. Address any relevant concerns or objections and take into consideration any support for your choice - if still inspired by your selection proceed to the next step.

• Done Deadline 9/15/09 (Group)

Add your topic to the Project Page. Insert the Project Banner (at the top of this page) in the appropriate location at the top of your articles Talk Page. Leave a brief introduction on the Article's talk page notifying any interested editors of your intent and how it relates to this project.

• Done Deadline 9/20/09 (Group)

Develop a list of a minimum of thirty references relative to your topic. All of them must be accessible to your group members as either web links or direct possession of a hard copy. The list should be posted on the discussion page of the article using an accepted Wikipedia format in a new section entitled "references". These links may help Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources. The correct formatting is a make or break in an FA attempt.

• Done Deadline: 11/20/09 (Group)

All articles should have been submitted for at least one peer review by this date.

• Done Deadline: 12/7/09 (Group)

All articles should have been submitted for GA evaluations by this date.

• If the review and resulting GA status is questioned and the objections raised are valid, then the possibility exists that the 100 (grade) will, per my personal review, be revoked.
• There is no time limit to the review process. If someone decides that the GAN is fraudulent within the time frame of the project, the grade could be potentially retracted.
• I retain the right to over-ride the GA status as it pertains to your grade in extreme situations. For example: If someone creates a sockpuppet and frauds the GAR; I retain the right to call the review into question.

• Done Deadline: 1/15/10 (Group)

Course closes - any success in obtaining GAorFA can no longer be applied to your class average.

Concerning Deadlines: Understand - if you have any hope of reaching FA status; you will clearly need to make your submission well ahead of these last minute deadlines. Procrastination diminishes the number of opportunities to address problems and re-submit should you fall short on your initial efforts.

Concerning vandalism: As of this date 9/4/09 - If I deem that a justifiable warning concerning vandalism has been left on your talk page; it will result in your removal from this project. This will result in a zero on this assignment and utter destruction of your GPA. I have little tolerance for immaturity.

PART 2:

Adopt an article with the intent of achieving FA status.

• Done Deadline 1/28/10 Post an article for consideration on this talk page.
• Deadline 2/1/10 Reach a consensus on which article offers the greatest level of interest, potential references, and biological significance. We may also consider dividing our forces and tackling two.
• Deadline 3/15/10 Submit the article for peer review
• Deadline 4/2/10 Nominate the article for GA
• Nominate the article for FA (dependent on the prior events)

• Each student will keep track of their specific contributions via the edit history. At the end of the project you will submit a summary of your contributions along with your perception of the grade it deserves. This will be followed by an individual conference (your parents are welcome to attend) in which you must be prepared to defend the logic behind the numerical value that you've assigned yourself. I will either agree or challenge it (Maybe even suggest something higher!). Justification based on comparisons to your peer group will be out-right rejected. You are being evaluated on YOUR efforts. This is not a group grade. Based on first semester, it is possible, (if not probable) that the majority of you will deserve a failing grade. To ensure success, consider doing the following.

1. contribute to the articles content.
2. contribute to the articles referencing
3. seek out supporting images
4. extend your research to include email contacts with the experts
5. solicit pictures - many photographers are honored to have their photos show-cased on Wikipedia
6. respond to comments on talk page promptly and appropriately
7. interact with the community - seeking help and advice where appropriate.
8. be INVOLVED in the GA and FA process by attempting to address the concerns raised with the appropriate edits.

It seems like our class is set on doing two articles, and I agree. I would have liked to combine our forces into one article and make it perfect, but I think it's still better to do two for the following reasons: If one turns out to be a dud, in-editable because an expert in the field has stopped by to make it so, or not have enough information/relevant sources, we will always have another to fall back on. Another reason to do two is that we will get some diversity, in other words, if the two turn out to be the loggerhead sea turtle and the hepatitis b virus, individuals in the class can migrate towards the one they feel is better suited for them to work on, or at the least work the most on. All in all, two articles seems to be the best solution.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with Dom on this, two article would be the best way to go to maximize the effort placed on the students. --Joshyhmarks (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editors:--Merry Beth (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rationale:We have chosen the bog turtle as our topic because it a species that we are somewhat interested in, and also because it is a threatened species in North Carolina. The current page on the bog turtle is short with limited references, and is in need of improvement. We feel we can gather information and contribute a lot to this topic.
3. Comments from the community:

• Support - If you can access the local resources on the Bog Turtle effectively, then this should be easy to write. A local - to you - expert is Ann Berry Somers, Lecturer, University of North Carolina, Greensboro. She and the Dept of Biology have authored a number of recent reports on the Bog Turtle. My concern is your class competitors in group 5. You've both chosen herpetology topics. Do you think/know if there is a large enough community of like-minded Wikipedians to help both of your groups? I've done a bit of searching for active editors with an interest in lizards and turtles and I can't find them. My advice would be to negotiate with group 5. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate your interest in our group (and the rest of our class). I think every group in our class has chosen something about reptiles for one reason or another (although I know that one is doing the Scotch Bonnet). I will checkout the link you offered and I do hope that this project will be easy, fun, and informative. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I submit the above as good advice. I know it is good advice for I did not follow it. I have never followed good advice - I have only given it.

- Paine, Albert Bigelow (1993 (1908)). The Tent Dwellers (Nimbus Classics). Nimbus Publishing (CN). ISBN 1-55109-047-3. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

No worries. Wikipedia can survive 4 of 5 articles on reptiles :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do hope that this project will be easy, fun, and informative - You can hope for the easy part - but it ain't gonna happen. As for fun - I too truly hope so. Informative - on that you can be assured.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Please elaborate on the word "somewhat" as in it a species that we are somewhat interested in.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration on "somewhat" Well, we were able to narrow down our ideas for a topic to reptiles native to North Carolina. This came after we realized we had to step down from the human skeleton and the north american cougar. Thus we picked our next choice, the Bog Turtle because it was the best we found that met our remaining criteria.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The eleventh commandment was "thou shalt always love and respect turtles"; sort of the antagonist to the snake theme. Good luck! --JimmyButler (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course turtles are important. Without them, the earth would just fall through space (Turtles all the way down). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I checked out the "Turtles all the way down," and all I can say is that we totally had that in mind when we picked the Bog Turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editors:–Vancemiller (talk), –KatieW1992 (talk), –TimHAllstr (talk)
2. Rationale:We chose this to differ from others in our class. This seems to be a very interesting medical condition, and not much is known about it. There is no recent activity on the article or talk pages. Our group is interested in the field of medicine as well.
3. Comments from the community:

• Support. This article really does need some help, and you should be able to provide it. Think about whether the extensive series of subordinate articles is really necessary. or whether they should all be merged into the main article. Distinguish hypertrichosis from hirsutism. Distinguish excessive hair growth as a side-effect of drug treatment etc. from congenital hypertrichosis. And then you can set about smartening it all up like a good-quality medical article. See WP:MOSMED for some guidance, and/or refer to other medical articles to see how it's usually done. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This could be a fun article to write. A quick search on Amazon came up with quite a varied lot of sources. For example:

Julia Pastrana: The Tragic Story of the Victorian Ape Woman

Fact, Fiction, and Folklore in Harry Potter's World: An Unofficial Guide Hypertrichosis is in the index. One copy is available at your public library. see Carteret County Public Library, 1702 Live Oak Street.

Encyclopedia Horrifica: The Terrifying TRUTH! About Vampires, Ghosts, Monsters, and More Again, hypertichosis is in the index.

Remember that an article must be comprehensive, so you ought to go beyond the basic medical facts and discuss the condition's social history. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've folded in all the sub-articles into Hypertrichosis. The sub-articles were repetitive stubs. This should make things easier as it will reduce repetitive effort. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation. Once I started editing and fooling around with Hypertrichosis, a editor came out of nowhere and started to help. Hint: actively edit your topic pages and it will become a magnet. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm delighted to see the statement "interested in the topic". It can be extremely difficult to find common ground in a party of three. The article does seem intriguing. I agree with Wassupwestcoast; the social implications of such a disorder and its history might prove very interesting. I know nothing of the disorder; hopefully, its fundamental causes are not overly complex for our level of expertise. It will be interesting to see how you illustrate this - actually my neighbor.... --JimmyButler (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editors:–Reddevil1421 (talk), –Kaker42 (talk), –joshyhmarks (talk)

1. Rationale:We have chosen to improve the article about the North Carolina State shell, the scotch bonnet. This decision comes from the locality of the subject. It can be something tangible, rather than searching the internet that is filled with an interminable wasteland of dated findings. It feels like we're given a chance to head this research like true members of the scientific community. By understanding one of the simplest, most common things found on our beaches, we believe our research of the Scotch bonnet will give our group a greater knowledge of the process of forming a shell, and how it started in a time decades or centuries before our births. Also, we must give a considerable nod to a member of Wikipedia who suggested this article for us.–Reddevil1421 (talk)
2. Comments from the community:

• Support. Here are a few possible sources to get you started:

Nature Guide to the Carolina Coast: Common Birds, Crabs, Shells, Fish, and Other Entities of the Coastal Environment,

How to Read a North Carolina Beach: Bubble Holes, Barking Sands, and Rippled Runnels and

State Names, Seals, Flags, and Symbols: A Historical Guide Third Edition, Revised and Expanded.

Your school and public library will probably have all of these. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked your public library. see Carteret County Public Library, 1702 Live Oak Street.

And, there are 23 copies of the first books available, six copies of the second book, and four copies of the final book. You could be at GA by Monday :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Throws down a gauntlet**. I never understood why the Scotch Bonnet was our state shell. I've seen tons of oysters and conchs and empty beer cans half buried in the sand, but never a SB. So. If you guys can find an intact Scotch Bonnet (actually on a NC beach), take a picture of it and incorporate said picture into the article...I'll throw you a parade and make this man shave his mustache.--Yohmom (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Your rationale sounds convincing! I suspect, you will never look at a seashell in the same way when this is completed. I too like the local flare; especially since our school is on the beach. However, The personal connection should make this experience more tangible than a topic on some critter you are highly unlikely to encounter in your life-time. I too am a tad bit bitter over never actually finding one (only fragments) Do they break easily? Instead of shaving my mustache - perhaps a parade. Did you know I was a professional baton twirler?--JimmyButler (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There may be extra problems caused by this being a subspecies. Generally Wikipedia strives for rather strict limits on repetition. We do not want to have two articles that are 93% identical. There are normally very few differences between subspecies. So there may be a difficult conflict between the wish to make this a full flown article with a lot of information and the wish to keep information that is comprehensive to the species in the species article. I was not able to find a subspecies among the existing FAs. --Ettrig (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a subpecies FA ...actually, it is worse...it is a breed! see Banker horse. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Group Rebuttal We realize that the Scotch Bonnet is indeed a subspecies, but its counterpart, the Panamic Bonnet has little known about it. Wikipedia does not even have an article on it. Looking up the Panamic Bonnet (Semicassis granulata centiquadrata) returns one result, and searching books on Google returns one book, and even this is only one short sentence of it. If you can please find more sources of this other shell, then we will indeed look into the differences and similarities, and write our article around that. Joshyhmarks (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wouldn't say little known [1] lists a few references, though I haven't gotten down to the library to check them out. I'd imagine a species is going to have enough literature to back a decent article. Though with that said, and with respect to Ettrig, I feel as though a well-known subspecies such as the Scotch bonnet has potential for FA. Strombollii (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concern that I am expressing is not dearth of information, but the difficulty of dividing information into species and subspecies articles and how to achieve the right level of overlap. (Maybe I can create a good article on Semicassus granulata by copying 90% of your article. So much the better.) I frankly do not know whether this will be a problem, but thought it was worth a warning. --Ettrig (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oui, oui, I understand now, and see the potential issues. Good looking out. Strombollii (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal to Group Rebuttal: I'm a bit concerned with your following phrase: "If you can please find more sources of this other shell, then we will indeed look into the differences and similarities, and write our article around that." If people are nice and willing to help scope out sources for you, then that's fantastic; however, this is ultimately YOUR project YOU do the research. It's fine to ask for help, (I certainly did!) but don't approach the project with a sense of entitlement. Don't cross the line from collaboration into dependency. If you want to write an a-worthy, comprehensive article, you will have to put in a little more effort than a Google Scholar search. --Yohmom (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realization I kind of lost sight of the goal of this project, thank you Yohmom for pointing out the differences in collaboration and dependencies. I will definitely be looking for sources without relying on people to do it for me. Thanks to all you guys for clarifying this for me. Joshyhmarks (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Unexpected collaboration is the neat thing about Wikipedia. But the help and collaboration can't be expected. Almost everyone spends time on Wikipedia as a hobby: they don't need to do anything. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The easiest work around on the species / subspecies problem would be to move up a level. Write an article on the species with a section on the relevant subspecies. The Scotch Bonnet can be bigger than sections on other subspecies if the others turn out to be of minor importance. However, as I like to say, check to see if the sources are there and accesible before committing to a topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To solve the issue for now: I propose we take Ettrig and Strombollii’s advice for this project; seeing as a deadline is closely approaching. This meaning we do the species and then include a larger section on the Scotch Bonnet. That is if we can find enough information on the species (Josh’s concern), but I’m sure being a species would have just enough information as a subspecies. Thanks for the advice and support. For my group buddies, will need to discuss this topic and issue A.S.A.P!--Kaker42 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Red herring: Pondering the species/subspecies question, I think it is a red herrring. Within the Scotch bonnet (shell) article, there will be a taxonomy/evolutionary relationship section where you will discuss the scientific classification of the Scotch bonnet. Almost certainly you will come across confliction classifications in the literature. As for duplicating bits of natural history common to the genera and family, this is to be expected: common descent and all that. Yes, once you get Scotch bonnet up to FA, it will be trivial to get the rest of the genera up to FA also. But, that happens at FA all the time: see the bird FAs or the hurricane FAs or the endless episodes of The Simpsons. Don't worry about it. Just write the Scotch bonnet article and let it take you where it needs to go. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editors: Kyleemmroz (talk · contribs · count) Lisa_Anne93 (talk · contribs · count) SixStringz (talk · contribs · count)
2. Rationale: Our group decided to edit the article on the pudu deer because we find mammals to be more interesting than other animal classes. While we see deer all the time, they are so common to us that nobody really stops to think about them. Writing an article on something so common would allow us to 'stop and smell the roses'. Also, the pudu is the world's smallest deer and we find it unfortunate that such a noteworthy animal is lacking an efficient Wikipedia article.
3. Comments from the community:

• Support. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding sources. See

Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives: Fossil Record, Behavioral Ecology, Systematics, and Conservation

Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are you trying to convince the community of your interest or yourselves? I want something more ... what caught your interest specific to this particular beast?--JimmyButler (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you: We appreciate the links, Wassupwestcoast, and we'll be sure to check them out. Mr. Butler, I elaborated a bit more on the message we were trying to communicate and I hope this gives you a better view of why we chose the pudu.Lisa Anne93 (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Are you also going to do some work on Northern Pudu and Southern Pudu? The three articles are very intertwined, and really need to be looked at together. Note that I am not suggesting that they should be merged, given that Wikipedia generally gives each species its own article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer. The northern and southern pudu are subspecies of the overall pudu deer species. We will focus our article on the pudu and include some information on the differences between the different subtypes, like the northern and southern.Lisa Anne93 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Really? This is rather similar to the question of subspecies discussed by Group 3 above. Most (all, in fact) of the sources I can find by means a quick Google search split pudus into two separate species, northern (Pudu mephistophiles) and southern (Pudu puda). Maybe some authorities do lump them into a single species - but whichever way it is, you will no doubt need to investigate this, and you may find yourselves dealing with three Wikipedia articles, not just one! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support/Rebuttal It could be possible, if the two articles are similar enough, to redirect both to subsections of the "Pudu" article. Just sayin' Strombollii (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring: Two huge effort wasters on Wikipedia are a) intense battles over the names of articles and b) endless skirmishes over the scope (what to include) of articles. Not surprisingly, the articles themselves are often not better than stubs. I think the species/subspecies question is a red herring. Don't think about it. Write the article first, then at the very last moment consider if the name is the best for the article. As to scope of the article, on Wikipedia this is hardly a problem: merging and dividing is easy. Likewise, multiple redirects are simple. One last note, don't waste a minutes effort writing the lead of the article. The lead is a summary of the body of the article and can't be written until there is something to summarize. Finding sources and writing text will take a lot of effort. You will almost certainly over-research and over-write the article. Your left over knowledge could be used to - easily - write another article, if you wanted to, at the end of the project. But don't worry about it. Write this article! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring says: intends to divert the audience from the truth. Claiming to have the truth and that others distort the truth on purpose is not good manners in Wikipedia. The comment that skirmishes over the scope is one of the Two huge effort wasters points at exactly the kind of problem that motivated my original comment. My current interpretation of the comments from Wassupwestcoast is that this is potentially a huge problem and that we should "solve" it by ignoring it. --Ettrig (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that draws attention away from the central issue is the definition of red herring by the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. And, that is all I meant. The central issue here is to write an article. Unfortunately, I've seen articles get nowhere over endless discussion about the scope of an article. Nothing is actually added to the body text but the talk page is full of endless comments about what ought to be added. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The warning I tried to issue is that a subspecies article has a higher risk of such endless discussion, compared to most other subjects. You think this risk is high in general? Your recommendation is to just ignore such discussions? You don't think the risk is higher for a subspecies? My recommendation was to write about the species to avoid some of these complications. (But that was about the Scotch bonnet.) --Ettrig (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we won't under stand whether we have a problem until the first draft is written. We need to know what the latest authorities say about the issue. And, we need to know this in context of a first draft. We need to see the various sources compared and interpreted. At that point, the scope of the article can be modified. Maybe the title will change. Maybe the article will be merged with another. These things are easy to do after a first draft has been written: say just before GA nomination. Normally a research paper is over-researched and over-written in the first draft. It is a period of exploration. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is ironic, isn't it? Strombollii (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words out of my mouth :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Where would Croatan be without an article on deer. Can ya shoot em and what do they taste like. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Editors:--Rulesthecourt (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)--Sbrinson (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rationale: We have chosen to improve the current article about the frilled-neck lizard (frilled dragon) due to our interest as a group in reptiles. There is a need for improvement in this article because of the non-detailed description and information. Currently there are not many references or citations. The history page is not particularly long, and the discussion page is lacking in meaningful comments and input.
3. Comments from the community:

• Neutral I like the topic but a quick search of my public library and amazon.com didn't turn up a book on the Frill-necked Lizard. Yes, the Wikipedia article is bad. But, you are going to write the article and you don't want to turn a simple classroom assignment into an onerous task. Consider choosing a topic that people have written specifically about. Even a book aimed at pet ownwrs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok...I did find stuff under Frilled Lizards. For example, Giant Lizards: The Definitive Guide to the Natural History, Care, and Breeding of Monitors, Iguanas, Tegus, and Other Large Lizards and Bearded Dragons and Frilled Lizards Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think group 5 should negotiate with group 1 on topic selection. I don't think there is enough active Wikipedians interested in lizards and turtles to really help both groups. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is it the frilled lizard that is of specific interest or reptiles in general? If the former, why this one and not one closer to "home"? If the latter (reptiles in general) then why a lizard? It does not take "passion" to drive something to FA; however, I doubt many Wiki-editors are tolling away on articles that they do not find of serious interest. Does anyone in the group truly find reptiles of interest or is this a compromise?
• Response Well, first off i would like to say that in any sort of group dynamic there will have to be some amount of compromise. However, the frilled neck lizard was chosen because we all had a basic interest in animals and when the lizard was found it peaked our interest. Each member of our group is actually interested in this lizard and we plan to work hard to bring this article to FA. Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It does seem like a fascinating creature.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group effort on all of our parts. However, as stated above, the grade is individual. The students are allowed to work on both articles, and are allowed to flip-flop between the two. You are not stuck with an article. Please leave all comments about these articles underneath the appropriate sections. JoshyHMarks 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1: Loggerhead sea turtle[edit]

Article 2: Black mamba[edit]

Forgive my ignorance but I'm curious to know what the "AP" stands for. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Advanced Placement". It's a system whereby United States high school students take "advanced" classes in subjects, then take a test covering that subject at the end of the year. Doing well on the test is reported to the college they attend and most colleges will grant college credit based on the test scores. When I was in high school, I took United States History as an AP class my last year in high school, and also took (without a class, because my school didn't offer the class) the Modern European History along with the United States History test, and managed to get out of my entry level US and Modern European history classes at college because of my scores. They are offered in most subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way to find something to improve (third subtask in list above) is to look under the heading Search for Misspellings on --my user page. Clicking on a link here will bring up a list of articles with a word that is most probably a misspelling. Edit the article, do text search for the misspelled word, check that it really is a misspelling in the context, correct the spelling, save. You have now improved Wikipedia a little. --Ettrig (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that in every comment about misspellings that you post, you purposely mispell at least one word. Coincidance?

Two samples don't give much statistical confidence. The one here was genuine, contamination from my first language. The ones on your discussion page were meant as a joke. I exchanged the same letter, and to the same letter, as you. --Ettrig (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, the Edit summary is a friend to all editors: use it. You'll reduce the amount of stress on Wikipedia by a magnitude or two. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - I need to emphasize that with the class and do a better job myself with that step in the edit process!--JimmyButler (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them to make use of the "Prompt for edit summary" option under preferences: it's a good way to develop a habit. Strombollii (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts:

• Philosophical: Perhaps the most difficult aspect to this project is the crash course you are about to experience in citing references. This includes what information requires a citation, what is the most correct format(of the multitude of options), and what constitutes a credible source. I suspect that this will be a progressive learning experience as you fight your way through the project. However, let us dedicate this section to sharing suggestions based on our experience that may help others.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Philosophical: If you walk away from this project with a greater ability to discriminate sources containing credible information from the massive amounts of nonsense; then mission accomplished! --JimmyButler (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-links that may be beneficial

• Wikipedia:Citation templates
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Link tool-- Checks for broken links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohmom (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific suggestions

• Suggestion Avoid after the fact citing: cite your source as you construct the article. Do not add information and later try to "recall" where you located the information.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Agree on a format from the beginning using one of the templates from above. Perhaps seek assistance to determine if you are on an acceptable path regarding the format chosen. However, do not ask anyone outside of your group to take over this monumental task. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Your local public library has a portal to electronic resources and databases. see NCLive Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Your local public library has a interlibrary loan service. see Carteret County Library Interlibrary Loan Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Make friends with your school and public librarian! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took A.P. Bio in High School in just the 9th grade! I was only one of only four who took it in 9th grade, everyone else were upperclassmen! I should of waited! I barely passed this class with a "C" and I failed miserably at the A.P. end of the year test ending up with a 73 percent on the test, but I still got credit so It wasn't an epic fail! --A3RO (mailbox) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop by my talk page if you need any help. Wikipedia is a community and we work together to make articles better, so any time you have question, ask us and we will be glad to help you or find the right person to do the work! Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Help:Footnotes#List-defined references

For background, see the discussion that led to this extension and Signpost article,.Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wassup, can you explain this a bit further? I'm a tad confused: though this seems effective, I'm not entirely sure what's going on. Strombollii (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a solution to the age-old problem of cluttering up the text with reference coding. The bulk of the reference coding will go at the bottom of the wiki document. Within the readable text will just be short aliases. So, you will put the full reference outside of the readable text. This will make editing the readable text a whole lot easier! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin,

Hello! My name is Max and I was a senior at Croatan last year. I'm currently a freshman at UNC (chapel hill), majoring in Bio and Psych, and was in Mr. Butler's AP Bio class last year. Along with the help of several knowledgeable editors, I took the Wikipedia article Osteochondritis Dissecanstofeatured article status last year. Hopefully, most of you seek to achieve a similar goal - after all it definitely makes getting an "A" much easier. If you have any questions or need help don't hesitate to ask! Just leave a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as possible (my class schedule doesn't always allow for a timely response). With that out of the way, here are a few links you will REALLY want to use:

• Citation Machine (Be careful, this does not clear cache)
• WP:BIOL / WP:MED / WP:PHARM are the links for Wikiprojects for Biology/Medicine/Pharmacy and useful places to seek help or comment from like-minded & like-interested editors on your individual contributions and "work-in-progress"
• In addition to main polices of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviation WP:MOS) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (abbreviation WP:RS), there are additional guidelines to give further help of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (abbreviation WP:MEDMOS) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (abbreviation WP:MEDRS) which may be helpful.
• For biomedical papers, the best collection of abstracts is held at US NIH's PubMed which may be freely accessed
  • The search link is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
  • Some abstracts have links to the original full paper (at the relevant journal's own website or a copy held at PubMed Central).
  • As an example, have a look at searching on "Osteochondritis dessecans" - the page icons on the left of each listing (hover mouse pointer over icon for popup explanation) indicate if just an abstract, or a free full version link is included in the individual abstract pages (click on linked author's list to go to an abstract).
  • The 1496 number of hits can be daunting, so look at how adding the words "review" & "literature" to the keywords to search upon ([2]) gives a more selective list of 204 hits, and on the first page of 20 hits, a number of good candidates for giving us an overview of this unfamiliar topic.
• From the PubMed PMID abstract number, Diberri's template mark-up tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/ will generate for you the full citation mark-up for {{cite journal}} and with the <ref></ref> tags if so chosen. (Diberri's tool also works with book ISBN's)
  • Alternatively you might wish to link (or save as a browser favorite) Diberri's tool preset with the adding of ref tags and URLs as per:
    http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&add_ref_tag=1&add_text_url=1&id=
    But please note these URL's need to be hand checked to ensure they really are for free (vs subscription based) access to the full paper (vs. just a further abstract).
  • As an example, from the first page of the PubMed list of articles on Osteochondritis Dessecans there seemed to be a good review/overview article by Ytrehus et al. If we wished to use this as a footnote in an article, then simply enter its PMID number of 17606505 into the mark-up tool to create the markup for a reference shown as:
    
    Ytrehus B, Carlson CS, Ekman S (2007). "Etiology and pathogenesis of osteochondrosis". Vet. Pathol. 44 (4): 429–48. doi:10.1354/vp.44-4-429. PMID 17606505. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Don't procrastinate.

Don't think you can finish it in a night. Or a week for that matter. It takes hours of dedication to write and copy edit a single paragraph. Probably over a hundred hours for anything worthy of FA.

Quality over quantity.

DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. You won't get away with it. However, you will fail the course. You will lose all respect from both peers and mentors, and it's highly frowned upon when applying to college.

Find a mentor. Use them and abuse them (but don't lead them on - if you intend to edit your article, follow through).

Finally, and most importantly, don't be afraid to speak up. We (Butler, Alexis, Chris, Me etc.) are here to help you, but we can't unless you ask questions. Unfortunately, we can't read minds.

EDIT: Always use the "new comment" button instead of just "edit" when adding new comments to a talk page. Otherwise it won't be included under a title of your choosing - adding unnecessary confusion and chaos. Thanks!

Cheers, Food_Puma 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2009 .... A day that will live in infamy.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya guys, I'm a sophomore at Northern Michigan University and an administrator on this site. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you find your time here enjoyable! I, too, am available for any questions related to Wikipedia or the Manual of Style; just leave a message on my talk page and I will answer as soon as I can! Just no questions about science. I am going into social studies, not that subject. :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you after a brief interim in academics. How goes it? Food_Puma 17:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PUMA! :) I'm alright. Need to stop procrastinating my schoolwork though. You? —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too am using this as a study crutch. Unfortunately this English presentation isn't writing itself. Food_Puma 05:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was plagiarized? / paraphrased? from Ettrig feedback at Talk:Bog turtle.

• The typical method of constructing an article is to copy the text and make some modifications to avoid plagiarism. Although you are citing the source; the paraphrasing component is often lacking or insufficient to avoid the need for quotations. This method is in essence plagiarizing. The fool-proof solution to this problem follows:

• "In Wikipedia it is necessary to create original texts although the content must be supported by other texts, the sources. One way could be to extract a list of atomic facts, if possible formulated with synonyms, reshuffle the list, sort the facts into categories/headlines, leave it a couple of days to forget the original formulations. Formulate anew with inspiration from the fact list."

Good advice. JimmyButler (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you simply can't reword it because of the original's clarity or use of necessary technical terms, quote it and have someone more experienced help. Food_Puma 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, quotation marks are a good thing! Since we are discussing paraphrasing 'tricks', render the passage into active voice, if it is in passive voice. Considering how prevalent passive voice is in technical texts, this can be a useful trick. It often results in much clearer sentences (the subject becomes explicit) and simpler (convoluted clauses may disappear). Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this "agreement" turns the discussion in a completely new direction. Until this, we were discussing how to write an independent text that is dependent on other texts for the facts. We should not plagiarize copyrighted texts. Bog turtle currently violates the copyright of at least two persons. Wassupwestcoast has endorsed and encouraged this practice by making slight modifications. While I believe it is possible to change it gradually so that it reaches the right side of the border between legal and illegal, I think it is unethical to do it this way. The current state of bog turtle is obviously illegal. --Ettrig (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This piece on plagiarism from the Wikipedia Signpost may be of use/interest. Dr pda (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and plagiarism are two separate concerns. Plagiarism is falsely attributing a work. Copyright is the commercial benefit of intellectual property during a defined period of time. One can plagiarize a public domain work. One can violate copyright while correctly attributing a work. And, paraphrasing a work can violate copyright if the paraphrase is substantially like the original. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A concern that often comes up in grading is: When is using a direct quote appropriate? There are likely many circumstance that warrant the direct lifting of a statement. In general, quotes are used when the statement has historical significance or in some way offers profound insight into the article or author that can not be achieved by rephrasing the content. Because the quote should make an "impact" on the reader; direct quotes should be used sparingly. There is also special formatting that emphasizes the statement is a direct quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style.JimmyButler (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I was amused to see displayed at my university's bookstore: Blum, Susan Debra (2009). My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-4763-1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments about copyright from a non-expert. First, it is unlikely that any individual holds the copyright for scientific articles. They are usually either held by the journal, government or employer of the author. Second, fair use provisions in the copyright law does allow use without permission by the copyright holder in certain circumstances. The Journal of Wildlife Management says in its instructions to authors, in part: "...authors or their employers must transfer copyright to TWS. If the article is single authored by a U.S. government employee as part of his/her official duties, it is understood that the article is not copyrightable. It is called a “Work of the U.S. Government” and is in the public domain....[3]. And, in the journal's terms and conditions, it says of "Permitted Uses: Fair use: Any use of the online edition that is fair use under United States Copyright law ([4]). In other words, what the law allows and no more. To quote a bit of the fair use section (which obviously is subject to legal interpretation), consideration is given to: "...

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

1. the nature of the copyrighted work;

1. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

1. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work ..."

How all this relates to the issue of plagiarization, I'm not entirely certain. And, note that if the author is a US government employee, it is likely that the content of the article is in the public domain. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is also a good place to solicit reviews, critiques and comments. Check out Bog turtle for an example. Don't forget to place notices on the various project pages to attract like minded people. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is feedback in your peer review - then address it - now. If there are suggestion that you do not agree with - provide an explanation so that it does not appear you are simply ignoring the suggestion. If you submit your article for GA without responding to the feedback on the peer review pages and I manage to critique it first - you are not going to pass. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I - like my students- appreciate all the help we can get!!!Perhaps not the weekend to be away from the machine; however, things seemed to have taken a big leap forward. Nothing like a deadline to instill motivation. What I am now hoping for is a sincere and thorough critique of all four articles regarding their GA potential. I suspect (hope) that the experts will hold them to the highest expectations leaving suggestions that will guide them to a truly GA product and if time permits something to consider for FA. (Copied from My Talk Page).--JimmyButler (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a common theme in our writing style which has proved problematic for those that follow up with the copy/edits. LESS IS MORE. Be straight forward and far less verbose! Look at the edit history; the majority of the cleanup has been simplifying and streamlining. Something in which we all may wish to need to work on! --JimmyButler (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact, this may be of interest to you: How to improve your writing. This nice little guide is how I brushed up on my writing skills and learned the fundamentals of copy-editing. In fact, I still return every now and then, especially before publishing one of my major re-writes. This user also has a nice set of exercises that I also re-visit frequently: Redundancy exercises. Hopefully the tutorial will help both you and your students improve your writing skills. –Visionholder (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semicassis granulata is deadly difficult theme at least ten times difficult than any other theme here. If somebody will write "Bog turtle can fly", then it will be find soon easily as an error. But if similar thing will accidentally happen in any of gastropod's articles, then this text can survive for years because knowledge of wikipedians and also of all human generally is very poor and unsatisfactory about such things. People should write about themes that they understand a bit. If Semicassis granulata is intentionally to be the most difficult of them, then it is all right, but if there is intention to have all themes on the same level, then this one of them is unballanced. --Snek01 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, have you been drinking? Or worse? Didn't you choose your own topics? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Writing an article on snails is not easy, but every single article on Wikipedia presents challenges to its authors. As always, students have chosen their own topics. No one was unwillingly forced into any seemingly difficult article. The hope was that the editors' passion for their selected subject would give them the drive to overcome the complications associated with the process of researching and writing about topic. If you have further doubts about students taking on "difficult" topics, I suggest that you see two of the FA articles produced in the 2008 group: phagocyte and osteochondritis dissecans.--Yohmom (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're one tough cookie Yohmom, no prisoners taken. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not certain if you are seeking a response; but here it goes. Comparing the original article [5] to the current version of Semicassis granulata I see only dramatic improvement on what was initially a relatively insignificant stub. I'm fairly certain (our school is on the beach)that they know the beast can't fly. I would have thought that those with a passion for gastropods would have appreciated the interest my students have shown toward the subject, rather than proclaim it beyond their level of expertise. Admittedly they were a bit lethargic in their initial efforts and at least momentarily confused over hermaphroditic vs. asexual; but, I now see an article that is vastly improved. If I had a criticism, it might be the eagerness at which their efforts were deemed unworthy by the experts. Of course, it is not your responsibility to guide them through this project as you are not the teacher; but the quick trigger to criticize has me somewhat perplexed. They too have become disheartened by the commentaries and have expressed concern that they might be in the way, in your eagerness to "clean up" behind them. This assignment is challenging enough without the perception that the shell experts are annoyed with their efforts. Perhaps you have forgotten how intimidating Wikipedia can be when making those first edits.... that is, by the way, why I had them select stubs. I now feel compelled to make it the class mission to drive this article to FA, for I have absolutely no doubt that this is within the realm of possibility. Incidentally, you also managed to insult my Bog Turtle and Pudu groups; at no point did they perceive their topic less challenging. Even the Hypertrichosis group disagrees with you analysis; they have fallen into a pit of complexity with no hope of climbing out... yet they fight on. To my students... ignore the man behind the curtain.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. That was just my opinion, that was not criticism. I only wanted to point out for future students, that there are themes with very few human knowledge and some better known ones. I believe that is is impossible to write featured article about something, what is not well known with very few information about. It should be possible but in fact it is not. For example, there is no one featured article about recently discovered species for which is the only reference available. I would like to point out that for writing article on wikipedia is better, when enough or huge number of information is available. Enough information is necessary to be able to writing about something on wikipedia. Keep going. Good luck. --Snek01 (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I stupidly thought that Snek01 was one of your students complaining. I agree with you Jimmy, it's rather unseemly for an editor who clearly has difficulty in writing at all to pontificate so critically on what subjects your students may or may not write about. What's so particularly hard about snails anyway for God's sake? To prove Snek01 wrong, I'm prepared to offer whatever help I can to your groups in their efforts at FA, without, I hope, appearing to be condescending. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the doubly occuring comment about inability to write English is a much worse offense. This should really be apologized for. Not only is it offending. In the second occurrence it confuses two very different phenomena: (1) The ability to formulate grammatically correct sentences in the particular language English. (2) The ability to think about Wikipedia articles in general. Snek01 has clearly declared that they has much less competence in English than in Chech. Does this disqualify him from discussing the difficulty differences betwee article topics? Of course not! Do comments like these from Malleus disqualify a person from working in Wikipedia? Yes they do. Comments like these are clearly ruled out. --Ettrig (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted and ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yohmom (and Snek01 for that matter), I believe Macaroni Penguin also made it to FA. And another thing Snek, anything can be made into an FA article, I can write an article about myself (something "not well known") as long as I provide information that is credible. I can even come write the information myself, add it to a credible biography website (after going through criticism and checkpoints), and cite it in the article. To say that making the scotch bonnet article FA is "impossible" is a 100% false and 100% ignorantly based statement. Mr. Butler, we should have the entire class work on the Scotch Bonnet article and make it FA by next semester. I don't care if I just get a "micky mouse" grade for it, or no grade at all for that matter!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The penguin article was taken to GA by a student. Someone unaffiliated with the project took it to FA.--Yohmom (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I was a little confused by the wording in our banner on the discussion page of the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note. Wikipedia articles are all supposed to be on notable subjects. An article about NYMFan69 may or may not survive on Wikipedia depending on the notability of the subject. Of course, this is said tongue in cheek. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refute the claim. Banker Horse was a more difficult topic than any snail could be. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to explain that Snek01 was making one important and relevant point which is true for most species of gastropods, except for the ones that are economically important either as a food source or a pest species. For most species, if you search online and in the standard serious shell books, you can fairly often find a decent description of the shell and some info about habitat and range. But other than that, in a lot of cases there has been nothing, or next to nothing, ever published about the anatomy, physiology or behavior of the species. And that is because no scientists have ever done that research. Quite often the information just isn't out there to find because the facts are not known, period. And when that is the case, it really puts a limit on how much you can expand an article. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what Snek01 wrote wasn't actually true then. Perhaps you might remind him of the need for accuracy in his observations, as he is so critical of others. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, what was it that you thought that he said? Maybe you misunderstood his prose? He is from the Czech Republic and his English is not very clear sometimes. As far as I am able to determine, the point I explained above was actually the main point he was trying to make in his message at the top of this thread. He was referring to the fact that most species of vertebrates, especially land vertebrates, have been investigated scientifically a very great deal more than most species of sea snails, apart from those that are economically important. In other words there is a lot more information available in the scientific literature about most land vertebrates than there is about most species of sea snails. Invertzoo (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it seemed like he was saying (at least to me), was that we, as in the members of this project (myself included), couldn't possibly take a snail article to GA or FA because it is too "deadly difficult." What were we supposed to think? He said nothing about lack of research or of general knowledge of the subject, he was just rambling on about how hard the scotch bonnet article was when compared to the others our class was doing.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no he meant that with a few exceptions, getting most snail or slug species articles up to GA or FA is extremely difficult (sometimes impossible) for anyone to do, because of a very real lack of detailed published information about most individual species. In WikiProject Gastropods we have over 6000 articles. Right now only 4 of them are GA and none are FA. For the great majority of snails other than those that have economic importance, very little has been published in terms of the detailed anatomy, behavior, development and so on. That's true of the majority of bivalves and other mollusks too and no doubt is also true of many other invertebrate groups. With some sea snails, people do get pretty familiar with the shells, because the shells can be found on the beach, but for these snails that live mostly offshore, science usually doesn't know too much about the living animal. Invertzoo (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be truth, that information on any one species of mollusk is limited. However, for an article to reach GA or FA is must meet the criteria of well-researched. That simply means that what you write represents a thorough coverage of the existing information. If the organism is poorly understood by the experts; this does not reflect on the Wikipedia article; and does not rule out the possibility of GA or FA. It simply means that you must explore what few resources are available. It will likely make for a short article; however, GA has no article length criteria - my favorite, Banker Horse had very limited information available and thus is not lengthy. It does represent the most comprehensive summary of the topic on the internet; irregardless of the length; it reads flawlessly and thus it is FA. Obviously, some articles will remain stubs - a lack of information can be a factor; but this shell article could have / should have been GA. The barrier to their success was not a lack of information; but rather, the fabrication of information. I'm not convinced they made an effort to access all the resource that are available on this particular organism. Procrastination destroyed their chance for GA; not the difficulty level of the subject. Their belated response to the GA review and general suggestions by others, set the tone on the talk page. Rather than fostering a positive interaction, they fell under diligent criticism - my own included. With no desire to dismiss the challenges faced by our shell friends and their passion for the subject; an article on any species tends to be much more accessible GA option than so many other biological subjects. Offhand, I would say those that take on the medical articles find themselves in a daunting task with exceptionally high standards for GA; FA is a million to 1 shot!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two GA's - no shame in that. But what now? Clearly, during the spring semester we must collaborate to achieve FA on something! I'm thinking Bog Turtle has the best shot. The initial group will continue to improve with that goal in mind. For the remaining students - what should we do? I'm thinking we will concentrate our combined intellect on one single article. Put all those eggs in one basket ... etc .. etc ... So which article is worthy of our dedication and mad skills? WE all have developed a passionate hatred for shells - thus no one wishes to go there (Yes A.B. there was an actual living animal inside that hole! Cool - yes). The hairy human syndrome is problematic; too many diseases under one heading - I'm a little worried about that hairy patch and spina bifida ; Perhaps I should have that checked?. That leaves Pudu, one of our GA's and the Frilled Lizard. Both reasonable options. Then again we could scour the data base and reach a consensus on something completely out of the blue! The mechanism behind purring in cats - perhaps. Ideas and rationales requested:--JimmyButler (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of the class, but I'm an admirer of your work and thought I'd offer some ideas... if you want them. I don't know if you're looking for articles that are already GA to take to FA, or if you'd be interested in articles that need significant work, but here's a short list:

• Ecological niche (Start class)
• Allopatric speciation (Start class)
• Biological dispersal (Start class)
• Adaptive radiation (Start class)
• Coevolution (Start class)
• Evolutionary biology (Start class)
• Phylogenetics (Start class)
• Natural selection (B class)
• Introduction to evolution (B class)
• Species (B class)
• Strepsirrhini (Start class) -- more of a personal wish, but please avoid Lemur as I have a massive re-write in production

Anyway, your assistance with any of these High or Top importance articles would be much appreciated, especially because they are so fundamental to biology. (I figured they'd be perfect for an AP Biology class.) Anyway, best wishes and if you need help, don't be afraid to ask. –Visionholder (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest Osteitis fibrosa cystica? =D Strombollii (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles are (generally) held to much higher standards than articles on species, as JimmyButler quite rightly observes. And I can't believe that you (Visionholder) suggested Introduction to evolution. Evolutionary theory is a nightmare, particularly in the States. On reflection, perhaps only in the States, but it's best avoided in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary theory is valid science and its teaching in schools has been upheld by the U.S. courts. Popular controversy (that only exists in our worthless news media) is addressed in other Wiki articles and does not need to be addressed by this article. This is an AP Biology course, and although an "introduction" page would seem below them, I personally view "AP" courses as a chance for instructors to do more than give topics a passing glance. Taking Introduction to evolution from B class to FA would be both highly educational (at an AP level) and a great challenge... perfect for this project, IMO. –Visionholder (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and also for all practical purposes impossible. Evolution is an idiot magnet. Can you think of any other country in the world where laws have to be passed to allow the teaching of scientific theories? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No laws that I know of have been passed, although fundamentalists are trying for legislation or court rulings in their favor. (But then again, I don't care too much about the legal crap, so maybe I've missed something obvious.) All that I'm familiar with are the court cases... which are not laws. Yes, the topic of evolution may draw the attention of a lot of undereducated people, but that does not make the article impossible to improve. Evolution, the parent article, is FA. If the students opted for this topic and creationists started mucking with their work, just bring the topic up on the talk page and point them to the Evolution FAQ, then seek mediation if necessary. Evolution is one of the most important topics in the field of biology. In fact, it forms the foundation of modern biology. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss the article (or topic) so casually. They don't need primary sources for the re-write, and there are tons of good secondary sources readily available. They just need to focus on the science, not the crap in the press. –Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll simply say that I think you're expecting too much of a high school student project. Even I would blanche at tackling evolution, and I'm no shrinking violet. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I eagerly jump on this chance to side with MF for once. We seem all to agree that those who are sceptic to the existence of evolution are wrong. I agree with MF that they might cause problems for our dear students if they go there. --Ettrig (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just one suggestion. The start class articles I listed are the ones I most want to see revised. In fact, Ecological niche was the article that I had in mind for this group and was what inspired me to post originally. I just offered a list in case they wanted more options, and I offered a few B class articles in case they wanted something that didn't require quite as much work. – Visionholder (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Well, I meant the OFC as a bit of a joke, because it's the article I worked on last year with JimmyButler. However, as seen in Osteochondritis dissecans, a medical FA is certainly possible. And Introduction to evolution is daunting, but would probably benefit from a legion of intelligent, motivated editors. Of course, there are a myriad of other choices, such as those listed above. I may research allopatric speciation a bit. Strombollii (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest New Scientist has an article - Horizontal and vertical: The evolution of evolution - that might provoke a possible article. Maybe Wikipedia already has something. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a flashback to philosophy class: Kierkegaardian love Strombollii (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are excellent suggestions on the list; all input is appreciated. Exposure to the science behind evolution is essential. My personal experience with the intro article may be of interest. The Introduction to Evolution Article was FA (at least until September); when it was nominated for demotion. The article was completely rewritten by a single author - before the FA demotion was closed. The replacement version - of course - was immediately demoted. Since, I have restored the FA version (now - to my dismay - minus the star). This article originally made FA status in a brutal if not bizarre review, in which it was up for deletion at the same time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) I suspect it is one of the more volatile articles on wikipedia. This was my last comment as User talk:Random Replicator during the FA process, after a protracted and frustrating FA review. It was written at some weird 2:00am hour - which confirms a prior statement and truth Evolution is an idiot magnet!  : Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Until you are willing to use the edit this page option at the top; you will unfortunately have to depend on others to address your concerns. As such, it is better not to lace every suggestion with derogatory commentary about either the article or the editors. I have no ownership here; I'm simply trying to orchestrate compromise; which until now - I've been successful. If you goal is to improve --- then jump right in. If your mission was to be a disruptive force --- then consider it accomplished. As the last surviving member of the Wikigang -I formally declare that I've had a belly full of this crap. I'm done --- you win! Someone e-mail and let me know how it comes out.

Wikipedia can be a very ugly place. Considering how poorly we networked with a sweet lady who is in to shells - the intensity surrounding Evolution would be disastrous! Ummmmmmmm Although it might be more fun the second time around!!! Wassupwestcoast - stop me anytime.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are many possibilities of things we can do. However, I feel if we take a B-Class article to FA we will find ourselves unable to add too much content. Two things that I saw that our class could solve would be gorillas and chimpanzees. I guess I had apes on my mind.--TimHAllstr (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for Top-Importance, Start- and Stub-Class articles in the Wikiproject:Biology project, and found a few Start-Class: Male, Female, Human biology, Molecular biology, Biosphere, Anatomy, Zoology, among others.Joshyhmarks (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend staying well clear of articles with the vast scope those ones potentially have. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'm just throwing out suggestions here. And I was thinking about how such broad topics could be a nuisance. --Joshyhmarks (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some more articles I found: Both the Loggerhead Sea Turtle and the Monitor Lizard are start-class articles, and I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be like any shell! Joshyhmarks (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had until the weekend to do this... Anyways, I think the loggerhead would be a simple article to add on to, but there could be something we're not seeing about it. Why hasn't it already been added to. Maybe it was overlooked. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm stuck on frills, but I think the Frilled shark would be something interesting, and the current article could definitely use some work.--Sbrinson (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a carniverous plant? I've always been rather fascinated by them. This one could do with some work. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love carnivorous plants! They are very unique. Another one is here, I've actually heard of this one. Joshyhmarks (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arctocephalus forsteri, or the Australasian Fur Seal may be a good one if you want to go with some kind of animal. It is a stub article.--Merry Beth (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be guided by what material you can fairly easily get together on whatever it is that you choose. Having less of the "aww cuddly" factor I'd guess that a carniverous plant would be easier. My second choice would probably be some kind of fungus. They're also quite fascinating. Or a virus? They're just amazing. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the start-class, high-importance Black mamba?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. The Black Mamba is one of the worlds most dangerous snakes and there would be no shortage of information. Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think snakes are fascinating creatures. Two start class snake articles are the Kingsnake and the Rat Snake.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes would be an interesting topic. Just looking around again, and some viruses: Herpes genitalis, Hepatitis B virus, Viral replication, and Lysogenic cycle. All of these are Stub-Class High-Importance in Wikiproject Viruses. Joshyhmarks (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Protein synthesis is Start-Class, I'm SURE we could all write pages about it. Surprises me that it is only Start-class. Joshyhmarks (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not mind working with an animal - anything is better than a shell. However, I would not suggest doing with the Pudu because a lot has already been done to it and the lizard because apparently there is not much information or interest in the topic. The viruses seem like an interesting topic as well especially since we all should know the topic having covered it in class. --Kaker42 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses may even be the beginnings of life on Earth. What could be more important than that? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well again I make a fool of myself in class, but i have decided to play ball. The box jellyfish is something of great interest to me. The animal has the most potent venom in the animal kingdom. This alone makes it of great interest to the community looking for explanations and factually accuracy about the animal and how truly dangerous it it. The box jellyfish population is EXPLODING. This is becoming a great concern to many. Scientist seem to be scrambling to find why these creatures population is exploding and how can we prevent these creatures from invading our beaches. Even upon typing box jellyfish into google, wikipedia was not the first result, and the jellyfish article, just the jellyfish article was present on the page. I feel that while improving wikipedia, we can also improve the well being of thousands by providing factual information that could possibly save lives. Reddevil1421 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Andrew himself..."awwwwwwwww." Now, the box jellyfish does look interesting, but I have to say I would like to see the black mamba and the loggerhead sea turtle be our two. Perhaps I could live with the black mamba and the box jellyfish though. Good work in finding that article though Andrew.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find Andrew; one thing is that Box jellyfish are not a specific species. It's a class of a lot of species, so you are wrong about the Jellyfish Article alone being on the page. Maybe a specific jellyfish? Nothing wrong with it, just we had a problem with generalization with the shell once. Joshyhmarks (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2010 (

The Chosen Articles[edit]

So, are there any ideas for the two articles we're going to work on? Is the Loggerhead turtle a definite one? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, I would like to do the Sundew personally, but Herpes virus might be good. JoshyHMarks 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The loggerhead looks pretty straightforward, and from what I saw by googling the scientific name there certainly is information out there not already in the article. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the loggerhead and either the Black mambaorBall Python (snakes are freaking cool).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the Black Mamba until Friday. Is there enough information out there to write an article about it? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am up for the Loggerhead Turtle, but I also got the impression that we should be iffy about the article. Right after Mr. Butler mentioned that topic, he said something along the lines that its not his fault if we pick a bad article. Has there been any disputes on the article itself or is there another article under the scientific name? My other votes, besides the loggerhead, are with the genital herpes and black mamba. --Kaker42 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little activity on the Loggerhead article, and the scientific name redirects to the same article (shouldn't the article name be the scientific name?). There are many herpes articles, herpes simplex, herpes simplex virus, Herpes genitalis... Also, medical articles are not as straightforward as they may initially seem. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes genitalis is the article that I found, which is start- or stub-class. JoshyHMarks 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a medical article. It will be very difficult. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also up for the Loggerhead Turtle. As for the other article I think we should do the black mamba, I agree that snakes are cool.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes might be interesting, but is there enough information available? Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely enough information about the black mamba, they are a very famous species, I don't know about the loggerhead, I haven't googled it yet. But the ball python is also fairly famous, so I'm sure has a lot of info on it as well (I don't know if Herpes would be a good choice though, it's a medical article right?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Loggerhead is a good idea, as well as the Black Mamba. I just did a search on the loggerhead and found plenty of sites that we could use. Also, there is a potential to get information from experts at the aquarium. I did a search on the Loggerhead's scientific name (Caretta caretta) and found that it is the same article that we could work on. Also the discussion shows no history of GA, FA, or Peer review attempts. I have to give a very BIG no to herpes. It's a medical article, and trust me trying to venture into that world is a nightmare. I say we stick to the animals.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ball python may be a good idea as well, because it is often kept as a pet and it would be easy to find information and experts on it. It may be better than the Black Mamba because it seems less developed. However, I think the black mamba would be more interesting. I say we vote. Personally I vote for the Loggerhead and the Mamba.--TimHAllstr (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the loggerhead, that's probably what I'll be working on. I don't really have a preference for another article. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for loggerhead and the Black mamba. JoshyHMarks 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify not all medical articles will be hard to do, but I am fine with doing the Loggerhead Turtle and the Black mamba.--Kaker42 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the loggerhead. The black mamba seems like a good choice, but I also like the Sundew, which is lacking a bit in content. Anyone else for the latter?--Sbrinson (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I can just think of the Herpes article ( "if I was a virus i would want to be herpes" ) my favorite Butler quote besides his cats name. On a more serious note, i love both of these choices Loggerhead turtle and the Black mamba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevil1421 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 January 2010

Heeeeeeeeeeeere Scrotum, Scrotum, Scrotum...here kitty, kitty.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Current Vote:[edit]

Loggerhead turtle - 7

Black Mamba - 7

Sundew - 1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyhmarks (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Comments[edit]

The sundew might be interesting, but Black Mamba will probably win in a vote. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My votes were one for Loggerhead and one for Mamba, sundew looked a like it would be hard to find refs for.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if sundew has limited references I'm voting for the Black Mamba. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My votes were for the loggerhead and mamba; I am not as interested in the sundew. --Kaker42 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the jellyfish wasn't nominated lets do both of these. My votes lie with the mamba and the logger head. But to be honest I prefer the mamba.Reddevil1421 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My votes were for the loggerhead and the mamba; the sundew does ot really appeal to me as much.--Kyleemmroz (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done From past experiences - I see you now understand the value of topic selection. Your rationales for the selection are sound; if there are problems ahead - they are not obvious. The black mamba was an attempt from first semester of last year; albeit a feeble one. I felt then that it was a very good choice and likely remains so. The loggerhead - that was a gift from heaven - unless it is a trick of the devil... oops ... religion in the school "my bad?" If someone wants to set up our project page to reflect our choices and tag the talk pages of the two articles with our banner, you can get down to business. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Overview and Dates for the second semester project (continued from Fall) is posted at the top of the page. Feedback is welcome.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good PDF file for the Loggerhead. I don't know how to cite it. Can someone give advice? --TimHAllstr (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the url? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://ww2.coastal.edu/msci302/ST-repro2.pdf I believe it is a journal, but I could not find a doi or id. It seems like a very good source.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That does indeed look like an excellent find, with a great references list for further research. Looks like a chapter in an unpublished book to me though, so I'd list it as such with a publication date of "in press" or ideally the month and year it's due if you can find out, as in "March 2010", for instance, and if it's in press you should be able to find an isbn as well. So here it is:

{{citation |editor1-last=Bolten |editor1-first=Alan |editor2-last=Witherington |editor2-first=Blair |last1=Miller |first1=Jeffrey D. |last2=Limpus |first2=Colin J. |last3=Godfrey |first3=Matthew H. |contribution=Nest Site Selection, Oviposition, Eggs, Development, Hatching and Emergence of Loggerhead Turtles |title=Biology and Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle |pages= |year=in press |publisher=University of Florida Press |isbn= |url=http://ww2.coastal.edu/msci302/ST-repro2.pdf |accessdate=February 2, 2010}}

which will give you:

Miller, Jeffrey D.; Limpus, Colin J.; Godfrey, Matthew H. (in press), "Nest Site Selection, Oviposition, Eggs, Development, Hatching and Emergence of Loggerhead Turtles", in Bolten, Alan; Witherington, Blair (eds.), Biology and Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle (PDF), University of Florida Press, retrieved February 2, 2010 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |year= (help)

You can update the details when the book appears, when the link may well go dead anyway, to show the page numbers of this chapter in the "pages=" parameter I've left blank. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link to an archive of the article?Strombollii (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple of other references to what looks to be the same thing; this appears to be chapter 8 (pp. 125–143) of this 2003 book (this worldcat entry should give you all the details you need for the citation). Different references give different publishers—University of Florida Press, University of Washington Press, Smithsonian Books, so it may be worth trying to get your hands on a copy of the book to find out which is correct (though there may be different editions). The PDF file you found originally seems to be an early draft, judging from the bold corrections which can be found in it. This pdf looks to be a proof copy of the actual book chapter, which might be a better one to link to. (It looks nicer too!) Dr pda (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]