Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 12 April 2014

Cwmhiraeth

Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · count) My competency at writing science-related articles has been called into question here on the Administrators' noticeboard where I have reported that I am being harassed by another editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Misplaced Pages? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I create content and mostly write or expand articles on individual organisms. I have also brought a number of articles to GA and FA standard

2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have not been in dispute with other editors but am constantly being criticised for my incompetence by user AfadsBad

3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?

   AfadsBad has stated that I make "multiple mistakes in every article" and that "every one of these articles needs extensively rewritten to be accurate." I would like a reviewer to look at some of my articles to determine whether the criticisms made by AfadsBad are valid. Thank you.

Reviews

• OK. I think I'm neutral here; as far as I can remember I have not interacted with either editor, and I am also not active at Wikipediocracy. My knowledge of natural sciences is also pretty good. I would suggest that @AfadsBad: gives examples of articles containing errors or misleading information here (together with brief information as to why they consider these articles to be erroneous), whilst @Cwmhiraeth: is welcome to submit what they consider to be accurate ones. We should be able to generate a reasonable discussion from this. I also suggest that all parties refrain from using terms such as "harassment" and "nonsense". Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this role. Here are a few suggestions Formica incerta, Xyloplax turnerae, Adamussium and Cidaris cidaris, or you could select something else, they are all listed on my user page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - see discussion at User_talk:Casliber#Harassment - we've been discussing this edit there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will look at the suggested articles, also, if possible. I am just going to do the most recent articles and the most recent edits. Someone feel free to correct my indentation to make this more readable.

• Glyptonotus antarcticus

• Description, bad link, found the same source elsewhere. "It is generally woodlouse-like in appearance and has a head with two pairs of unbranched antennae" Period missing from Misplaced Pages sentence. Description is about the suborder, but you are writing it in the species description. A suborder and a species are not the same thing. Not in source, "woodlouse-like" in appearance, and what does this mean, is it the similar flattening, because I think this giant Antarctic one has terminal appendages that are distinctly not woodlouse-like. Is the two pairs of unbranched antennae a distinguishing characteristic, or is there some reason, of all the information about the suborder in this source you selected this one piece of information to include in the species description? It appears to be original resource and improper weighting. "There is no carapace and the segmented thorax bears seven pairs of pereopods (walking legs). The abdomen has five pleopods (swimming legs with gills) and a single pair of uropods (tail fan) which are large and folded under the abdomen where they protect the pleopods." This is also from the suborder; the sources says 7 or 6 pairs, not 6 pairs of pereopods (maybe it's six pairs plus the uropods?). Pleopods are not "swimming legs with gills," although this may be true for this taxon (the suborder), but I don't know. It doesn't say "mouthparts" in the source about cuticular microstructures, and this may also significantly alter them meaning conveyed when comparing these to related terrestrial organisms and their microstructure functions. More to come. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• Also, the pleon in isopods can be a characteristic used for evolutionary relationships, so the number should be exact, if it is, but not, if it isn't. Accuracy may change something about the taxonomy of this organism. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• "It is thought that these may help to prevent growth of epiphytic organisms on the body surface." This sentence leads us to the fact that scientists think that the Antarctic marine isopod might be able to prevent plants from growing on its body. This is not in the article; the article speculates the projectiles may be able to prevent "forams and larval stages of sessile organisms," not plants. "Epiphyte" has the clue "phyte." Again, not even close to the source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• Distribution and habitat "Glyptonotus antarcticus is native to the Southern Ocean and the coasts of Antarctica. Its range includes the Antarctic Peninsula, the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea. It lives on the seabed at depths ranging from the intertidal zone down to about 580 m (1900 ft)." The Southern Ocean and the coasts of Antarctica? The Southern Ocean is the ocean that runs up to the coasts of Antarctica. How about "Glyptonotus antarcticus is native to the coasts of Antarctica including the Antarctice Peninsula, the Weddell Sea, and the Ross Sea. But, including these three specific locations implies they are specific or important, and omits why they are specific or important, that a single study identified an insignifcant number of unique mitochondrial haplotypes in these three locations.
• General The article also omits an important piece of information about this organism, it is a model organism for Antarctic marine isopods. And, because it omits this major fact, it omits descriptions of the qualities that make it a model organism. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

"::Comment: The source for "woodlouse-like" seems to be this unsourced 2006 edit to the article on Valvifera. I can't readily find a (non-Misplaced Pages-related) source that makes the same comparison, so it's potentially dodgy. Andreas JN466 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any evolutionary significance to dorsoventral flattening, so, this statement does require a source. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

• Reply I started expanding this article on March 30th and it was quite difficult to write because there was limited availability of suitable information, especially a description. The "woodlouse-like" is taken from the appearance of the animal in all the images that I saw. Isopods are mostly dorso-ventrally flattened. This article is quite a good choice of article for AfadsBad to criticise, not yet necessarily being finished! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The "woodlouse-like" is taken from the appearance of the animal in all the images that I saw.": I'm sorry, that falls under original research. Descriptions of physical similarities and evolutionary relationships should be based on sources, not on editors' visual associations. Andreas JN466 02:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• A statement
  • I am working on the article Isopoda with a view to GA and I come across mention of Glyptonotus antarcticus and I think, what an interesting animal, a four inch woodlouse-like creature crawling about under the sea ice. I decide to expand the single sentence stub. As I work I begin to realise how little general information is available. In my view, all species articles need a description but I can't find much information on the animal's morphology so I have to tack one together from different sources and resort to a higher level taxon for some basic details. I'm pleased with my detective work. So where does this creature live? Antarctica presumably, and the South Shetland Islands certainly, but does its range extend to Patagonia or elsewhere? I don't know and decide Southern Ocean is probably a safe choice. I also find that it occurs in the Ross Sea, the Weddell Sea and the Antarctic Peninsular so I add these details to my budding article. It's probably known from these locations because there are various marine research stations there, but I can't mention that because it would be OR. I find mention of echinoderms being a large part of the diet and add that. I wonder about adding something about reproduction. All isopods brood their young in chambers under the thorax. Many Misplaced Pages readers may not know this and I would like to add it, however I can find nothing specific to this species so leave that for the time being. I find some further information on diet which I plan to add, a list of several invertebrate groups that does not include echinoderms. I am going to revise the biology section to change the potentially misleading information on diet but at this stage AfadsBad starts criticising the article so I stop. All my pleasure in researching the species evaporates. Because a topic ban has been suggested and I want to continue to write articles on biology subjects and organisms in particular, I take note of AfadsBad's criticisms and hack bits out of the article so it conforms to that particular editor's view. Is it a change for the better, I think not. Is the article an improvement on the original stub, I think it is. Do I want to go on writing this sort of article, I do, but not with AfadsBad perpetually looking over my shoulder, calling me a vandal and trying to ridicule my every effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. According to AfadsBad no articles should be written on Misplaced Pages unless a world authority on the article topic is willing to write it. Our admin system is mostly interested in preening and feathering its own nest, and little support for content builders is going to come from that direction. Content builders who ever write articles on topics where they are not recognised authorities should be cowering in corners. Their only option now is to become admins or abandon Misplaced Pages. We must put our faith in the massive competence of AfadsBad, who surely now will write the necessary articles himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the problems identified, I do think you need someone looking over your shoulder, because at times you cite very unreliable sources, propagating their errors through Misplaced Pages. And resorting to a higher-level taxon for species information is problematic, for the reasons stated below. A reader should never be led to think that a comment made in a source on a higher-level taxon was made on a specific species. So if the source says, "Isopods are X", you should never write "Glyptonotus antarcticus is X", citing that source and making it appear to the reader that the source said this about Glyptonotus antarcticus. Andreas JN466 13:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your comment on my sometimes using unreliable sources is correct and I agree with your point about higher level taxa. Nor would I in the least mind having someone looking over my shoulder if they provided guidance and were helpful when I make mistakes. AfadsBad does not fit this role. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Atlantic Puffin, which, according to Cwmhiraeth's user page was promoted to FA status not "as a result of collaborative effort." So, I'm assuming she wrote it, reviewed it, and promoted it entirely by herself.

Objection Black Kite has banned snide comments like this one from the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, what should I assume other than that when you say, "I entered (the WikiCup again in 2013 and repeated my success. During the course of the 2013 competition 'Sea, Starfish, Common Starling, Manta Ray, Crocodilian and Atlantic Puffin were promoted to FA status, all but the last as a result of a collaborative effort.' What do you mean by Atlantic Puffin not being a result of collaborative effort? You also say below that someone else provided the cladogram. I picked this based on its being on the main page, but also your statement that it was not the result of collaborative effort, which sounds as if it could not be true considering the amount of work reviewers put into looking at FACs. Maybe you can include a more truthful statement about your ownership of this article, or maybe you mean something else by Atlantic Puffin not being the result of collaborative effort. You chased me away from Desert with your snide response to my correcting science and also let me know you owned that article, too. Was Atlantic Puffin actually a result of collaborative effort? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

You are talking here about a sentence on my user page. In the articles Sea, Starfish, Common Starling, Manta Ray and Crocodilian I had a formal arrangement with other editors that we should jointly bring the article to FAC. In the case of Atlantic Puffin I had no such arrangement. I expanded the article, nominated it for GA and subsequently for FA. Of course other people edited it along the way, especially during the FA process, but it was not a pre-arranged collaboration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Taxonomy and etymology "It is placed in the auk family, Alcidae, which includes the guillemots, typical auks, murrelets, auklets, puffins and the Razorbill." A list of tribes, except that the Razorbill is a species in one of the tribes. Why not just list the common names of the tribes as currently taxonomically accepted? This sentence is cited to a source which does not include the tribes, so this tribal plus one species listing is unexplained original research. "The Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) and the puffins are closely related, together composing the subfamily Fraterculini." The Misplaced Pages article calls the Fraterculini a tribe, not a subfamily. This contradiction was not sorted out before this article was promoted to FA. The Atlantic Puffin article uses a 1999 source, but the Auk article used a later source for its systematics section. The source used by Cwmhiraeth does not contain the information she included, that it is a member of the subfamily, it calls it a tribe, like the Misplaced Pages article on Auks. Also, the proper article to use for the taxonomy is not an article describing a newly discovered fossil species, but if that article is used, it must be used accurately. The subfamily is the Fraterculinae. This has the familiar ending for a subfamily, while the tribe name ends in "-ini," as is common in zoology for tribe names. Another not in source for this sentence, "The specific name arctica refers to the northerly distribution of the bird, being derived from the Greek "arktos", the bear, referring to the northerly constellation, the Great Bear." does not say that the name refers to the northerly distribution of the bird from the bear referring to the northerly constellation, the Great Bear. It's just a Greek-English lexicon with a definition of ἄρκτος. It's unsourced. --(AfadsBad (talk) 0250, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• "guillemots, typical auks, murrelets, auklets, puffins and the Razorbill" are a list of the types of birds by English name, not tribes, in the family. So it is not OR as you've asumed the tribe bit not Cwmhiraeth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are types of bird, and typical auks (note the "s"), guillemots (note the "s"), murrelets (note the "s"), auklets (note the "s"), and puffins (note the "s"), are groups of birds, but Razorbill (note the lack of an "s"), is a single species of bird, closely related to the other birds within one of the aforementioned groups. One of these things is not like the other. So, it was just a random list of some common English names of birds in the family? Why? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

So what are these birds, are they the major, the most familiar, the defining members, a minor subset, or what? This list didn't come from the source attached to the sentence. The Guillemots, several species of birds, the species depending upon your nationality, the typical auks redirects to auk, which gives it as some of the members of a tribe, the murrelets are a genus, the auklets, a tribe, and the puffins, a genus, and the Razorbill a species. Is there some source which lists these particular random common names of species, genera, groups and tribes of birds as the members of the auk family? It's OR; it did not come from the source cited, and it does not appear to be useful. Is it comprehensive? Are some tribes missing? The cladogram is improperly done, so the reader should not be expected to get the information from it. This is the random patchwork of information system. List the tribes, list a familiar member from every tribe, list the most familiar members, list some representative geographic members, but don't provide your OR about the Auk Family. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

The common names often do not correspond to the same taxonomic units, as you very well know - the common names cover all members of the family - they are used to engage the reader. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's unsourced, the reason, if any, for this group of names, as is the group of names. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Correct on the tribe issue - changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cladogram Copied incorrectly from the source, should be removed from the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• Chameleon goby

• "Orangish-grey?" Please don't. It can be orange to grey, but "orangish-grey" is a made-up color, and, even if real, it is not the same as something that varies from orange to grey in color. "Orangish-grey" is not in the source. " It is a demersal fish, living and feeding near the seabed, both in bays and rocky coasts, in brackish water and freshwater lakes. It typically hides in crevices, under stones, in burrows or among seagrasses." This is confusing, bays can be brackish water, and as you've emphasized brackish water it could be in brackish waters along rocky coasts, but, this fish is also found in marine waters; for a fish that lives in marine, fresh and brackish waters the article should state that instead of contorting something else. "The male prepares a nest in a crevice, a mollusc shell or even a discarded bottle or can. " This is the reproduction of the species in its non-native range. Is it the same in its native range? That needs sourced to its native range. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

• Reply I started expanding this article on 31st March and I am still working on it. About the colouring, the source says "grey to orange stripe" which seems unhelpful to me. I cannot use that exact same phrase in my article for fear of close paraphrasing. I have found little information on the fish in its native range and have therefore had to make use of the material I had. I was careful to say it bred in spring and summer rather than giving a month range, as that information would likely be different in the southern hemisphere. Similarly, its diet probably varies across its range but I have to use the sources I can find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the one place you should plagiarize. You once changed some crustacean color to avoid plagiarism and applied a characteristic color of a different species. Sometimes these colors are identifying characteristics. You should not copy the flowery language of sunlight in mangroves, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

It is on the main page now. Can you explain why you differentiated only one similar species when the source describes two similar species? This is OR, you decided to not include part of the information, creating an article implying this is all of the information about similar species. It's not. (AfadsBad (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

The source provides a detailed comparison with T. bifasciatus, which was once considered to be synonymous with it, while only mentioning the other fish in passing. I don't believe omitting something from an article is OR. Even a GA has no need to be comprehensive! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both; please add anything else you wish to, and give me a little time to analyse what you have shown. Best, Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While I haven't looked into Cwmhiraeth's work on here and on the surface it usually looks fine, I am very concerned with the behaviour of AfadsBad which is against the spirit of wikipedia editing. There's nothing wrong with pointing out errors and we should strive for accuracy, but it is a very clear from the way in which AfadsBad approaches the situation and Cwm that this is a form of cyber bullying, victimizing Cwmhiraeth's work, not done in the spirit of collaboration. It's as if AfadsBad exists on wikipedia purely to stalk Cwm's edits. It isn't right, however concerned she is of her work. I'm not sure an editor review is really needed although Cwm is clearly trying to be open to the fact that she might be introducing errors unwittingly. I'd say what is really needed here is some form of arbitration and a topic/user ban on AfadsBad from editing or targeting Cwm and her work on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, this assessment is completely incorrect. Cwmhiraeth's science writing is full of howlers that would make any self-respecting scientist want to pull their hair out. The readers of this project should be grateful for the fact that someone is actually putting in the effort to identify them rather than just throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away. — Scott • talk 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Scott's statement may be biased as he appears to be a friend of AfadsBad at the Wikipediocracy forum where he posts under the name of "Hex". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A friend? No. I reserve that label for people I actually know in real life, not random screen names from the internet. Also - biased? No. I choose to only respect genuine subject-matter expertise, which belongs to people like scientists. As opposed to people who pick and choose bits of books to clumsily glue together into articles. Not being a scientist myself, AfadsBad's continuing examination of your work has been illuminating. — Scott • talk 21:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • While I have no particular objection to being called Hex's friend, I am afraid that I also reserve that moniker for people I have personal relationships with, and Wikipediocracy is not a social network. You obected to other factual errors, below, errors you eventually corrected, by pointing out another editor from Wikipediocracy. I think that ColonelHenry and Blofeld are covering the "it can't be criticism because I don't like her," and you can probably safely just deal with correcting your article errors. Dispraging me, making snide remarks because I pointed out an error, pointing out en.Misplaced Pages editors in good standing who are also Wikipediocracy posters won't make the cladogram sourced. Correcting and/or properly citing the cladogram will make the Atlantic Puffin article better, though. At least some of your errors have been corrected after my posts on Wikipediocracy. Here, the corrections just get reverted. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

@Scott: As I said I make no comment on the content of Cwm's work as I haven't looked into it, but my assessment that AfadsBad has been picking on Cwm is hardly "completely incorrect". There is a big difference between constructively pointing out errors and solely targetting the work of one editor and seeming to relish talking down to them and scoffing at their work and driving people away from contributing entirely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Blofeld. @Scott, you state "Cwmhiraeth's science writing is full of howlers that would make any self-respecting scientist want to pull their hair out." Perhaps you would like to point some of these out, or are you relying completely on AfadsBads' assertions? If what you say is true, it would be more useful if others would point out my errors to me or correct the articles concerned (they are on my watchlist) so I can see where I have gone wrong. Off-wiki harassment and cyber-bullying is very unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Although inaccurate. ColonelHenry and Dr. Blofeld are both here because I criticized their articles, although Dr. Blofeld says his were written by two other editors, and he just got credit for them. Cwmhiraeth says I chased another editor away by criticizing their work. And what really exploded ColonelHenry was an extraordinarily bad geology section written by still another editor. So "solely targetting the work of one editor" is not accurate. I don't care who wrote it, but Cwmhiraeth, unlike the editors who wrote Dr. Blofeld's articles, ColonelHenry, and the editor who wrote the horrible geology, has done nothing to prevent future errors.--(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

I think that Cwmhiraeth set the ground rules for engagement with the Desert exchange when I removed a couple of howlers there and she reverted one then scolded me for removing the other because it messed up formatting. Sure, make up information and put it on the main page, as long as it is correctly formatted.

"Comments by AfadsBad

I think this article is pretty good, but it has some major problems, too many and bad information. The most technical sections do not make sense in many places. For example,

"The humidity may be as low as 2 to 5% and because water vapour in the atmosphere acts to trap long wave infrared radiation from the ground, the cloudless desert sky is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night."

Moves from low humidity, to water vapor trapping ground lwir, to a conclusion that the cloudless sky can't block sunlight or trap heat. This is all over the place, and what ir trapping has to do with anything is not explained.

The weathering section is based on outdated research. Rainfall is used where precipitation should be, snow is the only form of precipitation in some desrerts. The USGS reference is interpreted incorrectly, alluvial fans occur in all deserts, not just non-sandy ones. Same with aridisols, which are just arid land soils.

All cacti have not dispensed with leaves, check out Pereskia.

The CAM and C4 comment implies C4 plants open their stomata at night; they don't.

There are many other problems; here is one: "Most shrubs have spiny leaves and shed them in the coldest part of the year and in some areas, sagebrush covers 85% of the ground." The plant they are discussing with this area of coverage is Great Basin sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, which is not a desert plant. It generally requires a rainfall slightly higher than the average desert in its range, and, therefore, doesn't cover 85% of the ground in deserts anywhere. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)"

That's a real "Don't touch my article" statement if I've ever seen one. Condescending. And, she reverted my removal of bad science. You keep saying I should just improve the articles myself, but Cwmhiraeth has made it clear that I am not welcome to. I remove bad science, and she tells me it messes up the formatting. I remove made up science, and she reverts. Cwmhiraeth established her rules of engagement right away--stay away from articles she owns, don't remove bad science if it messes up the formatting because WP:Looking pretty is more important than WP:Verifiability, and don't remove made up science because she doesn't understand botany (as she claims on Casliber's user talk page) but knows it must be true or something. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't intend to deal with most of the points raised above because AfadsBad keeps on repeating them ad nauseam and I have discussed most of them elsewhere. Some of the criticisms are valid, others half-truths and inaccuracies and others trivial points that AfadsBad has exaggerated into major failings. As for the "Don't touch my article" statement AfadsBad has bolded above, AfadsBad has misinterpreted it. At the time Desert, the article in question, was undergoing a GA review and AfadsBad had already just disrupted a GA review of another article (Parsnip) so I didn't welcome her following me to Desert. My objection was not about "formatting" but at the complete removal of a reference to cacti as being part of desert flora as shown in this diff without substituting some other statement about cacti. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently pointing out the errors here is not helpful either. Please remove the cladogram from Atlantic Puffin and focus on your science mistakes on Misplaced Pages. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes it is - I will take a look at the cladogram now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Right then - so the two issues with the cladogram are that it is inverted and that the Scripps's Murrelet has been split from the Guadalupe Murrelet. In which case the best might be to remove scripps and append the Guadalupe Murrelet with a footnote explaining that the Scripp's has been split subsequently....unless there is something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can invert a cladogram. It is not a formattng error. From above it appears to be a sourcng error. If you synthesize two cladograms into one, either source it properly and explain or don't include it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

What? - if you understand cladograms all the branches are the same. Do you deny that? The two source cladograms in figs 14 and 15 have identical branches WRT Alcidae. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You said it was "inverted," and I don't have any idea what that means, how a cladogram can be "inverted." The two source cladograms are not the two from the cited article, for the purposes of this article, as the two in the cited source do branch identically, or so it seems at first glance, but the two sources are one of those from the article, and a cladogram from another source that added extra branching not shown in the cited source. It is quite obvious, if you click on the cladogram in the cited source that it is not the cladogram in the Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages should not attribute something to a source if it is not in that source, the reader deserves to be able to look at the source to get more in depth information, not a contradiction.--(AfadsBad (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Inverted means for whatever reason the bottom and top are flipped i.e. it is upside-down - all the branches are the same. There is one (1) extra species, which I advised a correction as above and below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there significance to top/bottom? I don't think so. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

@Cwmhiraeth: - I tried rejigging the cladogram but fucked up the code - I recommend the change be made as I suggested above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't attempt to do cladograms but rely on more knowledgeable people, in this instance IJReid. I asked him to comment on the cladogram and he replied in a post in this review that may have been overlooked. I have moved it to below this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the second cladogram incorporated into the cladogram that is cited in the article. Because IJReid incorporated information from another study, but only cited the one source, comparing the cladogram in the article to its source makes it quickly and obviously appear wrong. So, OR, synthesis, not in source, unsourced. The inversion does not change the information contained in the cladogram. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

• The only thing wrong with the cladogram is the insertion of Sythliboramphus scrippsi, which was not included in the original cladogram, but was named from Xantus's Murrelet, which has been split up. It is not possible to change the format of the cladogram, but wiki cladograms look different on different browsers. Also, it is not "it's own cladogram" just because it doesn't include the clade named from the original source. As the one who included the cladogram, I find the only problem with it is the inclusion of S. scrippsi, which is not that problematic at all. IJReid (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to start drafting out some conclusions later today, but I will be off-wiki for the whole of Friday, so I'd expect to be able to write things up on Saturday. Thanks for your patience, and please keep providing any further evidence you think may be useful. Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite:Thank you Black Kite. AfadsBad has made various criticisms above but what I would also like you to consider is the truth of the statement "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." This is a quote from the Wikipediocracy forum where I have been honoured to have a thread all of my own entitled "Cwmhiraeth, the greatest vandal of them all". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be going through more articles, and, since Cwmhiraeth wants to emphasize the "every single article," it is important to go through a large number. I am not picking articles in any particular way, just what she is currently working on, but three is insufficient. And I work full time, so it will take time. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

That's fine; I can always hang on for a while if you need more time; there is no deadline here. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Black Kite:Since this review process started eleven days ago, a number of editors have criticised individual articles (eight I think) which I have started, expanded or worked on. The points they made were mostly good ones and I have tried to deal with them appropriately. You would probably agree with me when I state that no article, not even those successful at FAC, are perfect, and articles nominated there all receive criticism during the review process. Nor do I think any editors could be described as perfect in what they write, they all sometimes make mistakes. So the question is, do I make mistakes in all or most of the articles I work on and are the articles less than competent. You asked AfadsBad to put forward articles of which she was critical and she nominated three. You asked me to put forward examples of my work and I nominated eight.

You proposed closing the review on 3rd April. It is more than a week now since AfadsBad asked for more time so that she could point out more erroneous articles. She has not done this, and has provided no evidence at this time to back up her statement "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." Nor has she or anyone else criticised the articles I put forward as being examples of my work. I voluntarily submitted my work for editor review as was suggested at AnI, where my complaint of harassment awaits resolution. Please could you draw this review to a close and publish your conclusions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the further evidence emerging, I would kindly ask @Black Kite: to not close the review.--cyclopia 11:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

EC

You claimed you had caught onto your problems and could fix them, and prevent them in the future, so I proposed you show that by identifying and correcting them in your articles. I offered five, you accused me of picking five that would do you harm. They are articles you wrote.

You could have looked through them. Instead, you've continued to add the same problems during this review--you have a sandbox and you use it for articles, why not spare the reader inaccuracies? You have excuses, but you have not shown, by identifying past errors yourself, or by ceasing to add errors, even after you've reached understanding, understanding of your mistakes according to you. In your talk page history, I found that other editors have told you this over the years, that you write badly about taxonomy and evolution, inaccurately, mistakenly. Your defenders have not offered content defense, they have vitriolically personally atracked me--this does not address your content, and no one has defended your content with positive examples. Nothing editors say to you about content has got through to you.

Five articles you created. Can they be fixed by you? How many examples do you need of what you did badly, inaccurately? In order for your mistakes to cease, you must be able to identify, correct, and stop creating the errors. Can you give me one article you created that has no major errors of the type you say you can see? How many times will you hear the problems, say you get it, then continue to add the same problems? No one has said anything differently. The problems with your articles and their failure to agree with the sources you use are easy to see, you do not write verifiable articles, and you cannot see this. If you don't stop creating them now, this issue will keep arrising for you and for Misplaced Pages, simply because Misplaced Pages does require verifiability. I don't matter--your articles are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia that requires verifiability. You have created over a thousand non-verifiable articles and continue to do so. I think your creating and editing science articles on Misplaced Pages is seriously detrimental to the project because your articles are inaccurate and wrong. Blame it on me. It won't verify or correct anything you wrote. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

From Desert:

Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) and the annual precipitation between 15 and 26 cm (6 and 10 in). For example, Cape Dorset on Baffin Island receives annual precipitation averaging 403 mm (15.9 in) but this is made up of 144 mm (5.7 in) of rainfall and 296 cm (117 in) of snowfall. The temperature seldom rises above 20 °C (68 °F) in summer and often falls below −30 °C (−22 °F) in winter. The soil in cold deserts is often fine silt, saline and heavy. Plants growing there tend to be widely separated, deciduous, low and spiny.

"They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica." This is stated as though it were an exhaustive list, which it isn't. More importantly though, "The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F)". That is not the mean winter temperature in Greenland, Antarctica and so on, by a long shot. Next, "the annual precipitation between 15 and 26 cm (6 and 10 in). For example, Cape Dorset on Baffin Island receives annual precipitation averaging 403 mm (15.9 in)". The example of Cape Dorset (403 mm) is well outside the precipitation range indicated in the sentence prior (15–26 cm). As such, it is hardly an "example" of what the previous sentence stated. Moreover, the cited source is specifically about Cape Dorset, not cold deserts. It seems odd for this example to be chosen for this article. The units given change from cm to mm and back for no apparent reason. As for 403 mm (15.9 in) made up of 144 mm (5.7 in) of rainfall and 296 cm (117 in) of snowfall (my emphasis), 144 mm and 296 cm do not add up to 403 mm. Not even 144 mm and 296 mm would (144 + 296 = 440). The reader is given no explanation. Insertion points (May and October 2013): . This is a GA. And it’s not just a GA, but a GA that gets in the region of 100,000 views per month (it ranks 2,850 in traffic on en:WP, and is no doubt used as a source for essays by thousands of schoolchildren). Yet the information is in equal parts wrong, whimsical, and confusing. Andreas JN466 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the temperature, you may notice I use the word "typically". With regard to the precipitation, 144 mm rain and 296 cm snow, different things are being measured and I believe the snow is the depth of snow on the ground rather than its thawed equivalent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make logical or didactic sense to say, "Xs are typically A; here is an example ...", if the example is not A, but B. More broadly, you're mixing and matching unrelated sources, essentially engaging in WP:SYN and creating novel narratives. That's a policy violation. Andreas JN466 09:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There not being many weather stations in the Arctic I used this one as an example. If you can find a better alternative, please do so. This is an example and I do not think WP:SYN is violated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why you have not corrected the false information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts? The range you gave (4 °C (39 °F) to −2 °C (28 °F)) is completely untypical for the locations you mention (Greenland, Antarctica, and the nearctic ecozone), and cold deserts in general. Does it not bother you that since we had the above discussion, around 10,000 people will have viewed this page, and that those who read that paragraph will either have been misled or will have dismissed Misplaced Pages as unreliable? Andreas JN466 10:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that you cited a completely unreliable source, targetstudy.com, an Indian website. The paragraph in the source reads, Cold Deserts - The Deserts that occur in Greenland, Antarctic and the Nearctic realm are called Cold Deserts. These Deserts are characterized by cold winter with snowfall and high overall temperatures throughout the winter and sometimes the summer too. Does this not set off alarm bells immediately? Cold winters with high overall temperatures throughout the winter? It continues, The mean winter temperatures in cold Deserts is between –2 to 4°C and the mean temperature is between 21–26°C. The mean temperature in cold deserts is between between 21–26°C? What were you thinking? They clearly got their texts mixed up. This is not a properly curated source. It goes on, The mean annual precipitation in cold Deserts range from 15-26 cm. Are we sure that whoever wrote this sentence in this clearly mangled source was writing about cold deserts at all? Note that Cape Dorset, which may well have a cold desert climate, has an amount of precipitation completely outside this range. The source continues, The soil in this area is salty, silty and heavy. The plants in cold Deserts are widely scattered and vary between 15 cm to 122 cm in height. Plants over a metre tall in Greenland and Antarctica? Please! The main plants in this area are deciduous, most of them having spiny leaves. Note that you have also reproduced the soil info in the article: "The soil in cold deserts is often fine silt, saline and heavy." This is practically plagiarism of a garbled source that I suspect may have been about some entirely different habitat than cold deserts. You are rushing, probably to make some WikiCup target, failing to scrutinise your sources, and adding material to Misplaced Pages that is not helpful. That is the kindest way I can put it, Cwmhiraeth. Please stop. And, just to be explicit, please go through the article with a fine-toothed comb and strip out all the information cited to this source, and check the reliability of your other sources. A Good Article Reassessment is clearly called for as well, and a note to the original GA reviewer who approved this article may be in order. Perhaps, as this is a level-3 vital article, Casliber might be willing to help set that in motion. I do not unfortunately have the time. Andreas JN466 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't feel comfortable using Target Study as a source, we need a better one, which should be straightforward to find. That source material on cold deserts is weird. I had a suspicion that coniferous plants were hardier at really cold temps but might be wrong on this - this needs a good secondary source, which will likely help address alot of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The WP:SYN concern is that you are describing the Cape Dorset climate as a (typical) example of a cold desert climate, but there is no source cited that makes that connection between Cape Dorset and the (sub-)topic of your article, cold deserts. SYN is always a potential problem if you are citing sources that do not mention the article subject. It's best to avoid doing so, and to just give a summary of sources that are specifically on the article subject. This applies equally when you are citing, in an article on a species, sources on a higher-order taxon that do not mention your specific species. If you're writing on a species, cite sources that are directly about the species (unless you are including some very general, brief introductory information on the genus, family or order the species belongs to, according to reliable sources, just to locate the species in the general evolutionary tree). In an article on a species, nothing should be described as specific to the species if it's in fact generic to the entire genus, family, order etc. For example, it would not make sense to say that "a bear is an animal with a vertebral column", even though it is true. When you are describing the above species of crustacean as woodlouse-like (based on nothing more than what the image reminds you of), you are committing a similar error, because the entire order is woodlouse-like. SYN means combining sources to make statements about the article subject that no source has made about that article subject, and there are examples of that in your work. Andreas JN466 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I made no change to the article in connection with the temperature in cold deserts issue that you raised because the figures I used were in the source I used. It probably is an unreliable source and I did wonder about the figures quoted, but you did not question the source before and it is only today that you have spattered the article with "unreliable source" tags. I have found a better source and will rewrite the relevant parts of the classification section, but not tonight as it is too late. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Upon re-reading your reply above, Cwmhiraeth, I realise that I misunderstood you. Apologies. You were saying that the reason you made no change to the article in response to my complaint was because the information was sourced. But please, think a moment. An average winter temperature of –2 to +4 °C, as you wrote in this GA, is what people experience in many parts of Britain. Is Britain a cold desert? The source also said that in cold deserts, "the mean temperature is between 21–26°C". That's warmer than Athens, Greece, and a range that would include places like Orlando, Florida. There are palm trees there, and people swim in the ocean the whole year round. Plants as tall as 122 cm? Surely you have seen TV programmes of Greenland or the Antarctic. There are no such plants in the cold deserts there. And the ice on Greenland and in the Antarctic would have melted long ago if the average winter temperature were between –2 and +4 °C, because summers are warmer than winters, and if winters are barely below freezing, summers would be above freezing. You need to realise that you have not learnt how to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources, Cwmhiraeth, and that you are writing about topics that you have no grasp of. This was a truly elementary mistake, and it has stood in the article for nearly a year now, viewed by a million people, and probably copied by an uncounted number of schoolchildren in their essays. Andreas JN466 22:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the "woodlouse-like" bit, though I might agree with you in principle, the only items of information I could find on the description of this species was the length, the divided eye and the cuticular surface. Not even its colour! It is not an article of which I am proud and it was difficult to write, but having started, I did not want to leave it unfinished. I see no harm in adding some general information from a source about a higher taxon, especially as most people wouldn't have much of a clue about what a "benthic marine isopod crustacean in the suborder Valvifera" would look like. In fact I consulted InvertZoo some time ago about the difficulty of writing descriptions of little known organisms and was advised that this practice was permissible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not so fussed about unfinished pages - that happens all the time. I have sometimes left articles I've written for DYK with content holes in them to see if anyone will fill them when an article is mainpaged. Hasn't happened yet though...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you do not have access to sources about a species, then my advice to you would be to either refrain from writing an article about it, or to just use what sources you actually do have, and leave it as a stub for someone else to complete. There is no problem with a reliably sourced stub. As for colours, you could for example have included an external link to a colour photograph of the creature. Many such images are available on the internet; Yale University has a good one here for example. Template:External_media is useful in such cases. Mining sources on a family or order for an article on a species is not a good idea. Just mention the family or order, and link to it in the article. Andreas JN466 20:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know - I've found pages half-built and gone on from there. That is the true spirit of collaborative editing and why this place is a little bigger than citizendium and others. Regarding the second point...hmm. need to check that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me there, mate. What are you replying to? I thought I was saying much the same as you: just create a stub with the sources available, and leave it to someone else with better source access to complete. Andreas JN466 20:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you mean now with "the second point". To give an example, it is an easily sourced fact that reptiles are tetrapods, and that the basic body plan of a tetrapod includes four limbs. However, to cite such a source in an article on snakes is not a good idea, because while snakes are tetrapods, they do not have four feet. Clearly, no one would do so in this case. We all know what snakes look like. But when you are talking about obscure organisms that have few good sources available, a habit of extrapolating from higher taxa to individual species is bound to introduce misleading information in a non-negligible proportion of cases. And we all know that once something is in Misplaced Pages, it is copied in myriad places. It's just not a good idea. By all means, briefly describe the higher taxon in an introduction, using sources on the higher taxon, but please don't make the reader believe that what the source said on the higher taxon was said about the particular species. If the source was talking about the order or family, the reader needs to understand that this is information characterising the entire order or family, and not the individual species. Andreas JN466 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Another random sentence from the same article: "Birds have avoided the problem of their feet becoming chilled by maintaining their lower limbs at external temperatures." Firstly, the sentence is on its face nonsensical. Birds avoid having their feet chilled by allowing them to get as cold as their environment? Secondly, as we have learnt, the environment can be dozens of degrees below freezing. If the temperature of an antarctic bird's feet were maintained at external temperatures, they would be frozen solid! Thirdly, this sentence cites "Scholander, P. F.; Hock, Raymond; Walters, Vladimir; Irving, Laurence (1950). "Adaptation to cold in arctic and tropical mammals and birds in relation to body temperature, insulation, and basal metabolic rate". Biological Bulletin 50 (2): 269–271." Is it a good idea to cite a paper as old as that? Fourthly, there is nothing related to birds having cold feet as an adaptation to living in a cold environment on pages 269–271. In fact, the only sentence that touches on the general topic on page 269 says, "There is no evidence of adaptive low body temperature in arctic mammals and birds, or high body temperature in tropical mammals and birds. ... Equally inadaptive is the body temperature, and the phylogenetic adaptation to cold or hot climate therefore has taken place only through factors that regulate the heat dissipation, notably the fur and skin insulation." This reads more like the exact opposite of what the sentence cited to this source says. Pages 270 and 271 are nothing but a list of literature cited. Why are we citing those pages? There is a sentence on page 262 of the source that says, "The cold legs of arctic aquatic birds and mammals (and probably of the terrestrial forms as well) may be taken as another example of adaptive insulation" (my emphasis). In other words, what the source says is that by not "heating" their feet more than necessary, these birds reduce dissipation of body warmth through their unfeathered feet. By having cold feet, they prevent the rest of their bodies from being chilled. Insertion point. Andreas JN466 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and one not picked up during the very thorough GA review. Why don't you change the article if you think the "random sentence" misleading. However the article Desert was not written by me, only expanded and taken to GA. I did my best to improve it but would readily admit that it is not perfect. If you want to demonstrate my incompetence, it would be better to choose articles that I have started from scratch or have expanded from brief stubs. I'm sure you will be able to find errors if you try hard enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've only commented on material here that Cmwhiraeth added to the article. Diffs are provided. Andreas JN466 09:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny that this was a passage written by me. The same meaning was intended but I expressed it badly. I should not have used the phrase "maintaining their lower limbs at external temperatures" when what I meant "not attempting to maintain their lower limbs at a higher temperature than the environment". I have now rephrased it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The way you have phrased it above is still wrong, as birds obviously do maintain their lower limbs at a higher temperature than the environment (if they allowed their feet to freeze solid, they would suffer frost bite and gangrene and would die). The way you have corrected it in the article however is fine. Thank you. May I ask you why you didn't correct the citation? The article still cites pp. 269–271, and the information is not found on those pages (pp. 270–271 is merely a list of cited literature). Andreas JN466 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

corrected source pagerange now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraphs on desert classification that you tagged as having an unreliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note Cwmhiraeth has made a couple of comments about errors I have missed. My error reports are not exhaustive or methodical. Other editors will be able to find errors that I have missed in her articles. I will begin posting my list ASAP. No article I include should be considered error free after the errors I list are corrected because I will continue to do non-methodical error lists.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

While waiting for AfadsBad to track down some more of my howlers, here are a few more articles with which I am quite pleased, each from a different branch of the animal kingdom. Red-cheeked salamander, Eurasian Wryneck, Natterer's bat, Crocodylus novaeguineae and Gastrotrich. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• From ANI

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light. Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up.

Whatever the result, I am not the only editor who has noticed this, because it is real. Cwmhiraeth is currently forum shopping editor talk pages and expressed an issue with my full time job requiring me to work five days in a row. This may be outrageou for Wales and other parts of the world, but normal in the US. I have access while monitoring, but no time until tomorrow. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right.

If you are going to highligh an editors comments, like you have just done above Afadsbad, in such a crass and unkind manner, then at least add the balancing comments such as I have just done for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a biologist and an editor, and I endorse what Cyclopia has said. Looking over the general flow of AfadsBad's criticism, the errors she's denouncing seem to me to fall into three categories:

1. Genuine, unambiguous errors of fact.
2. Poorly or ambiguously written material, which AfadsBad has insisted on construing as a definite error of fact. (e.g., the argument over the bat echolocation sentence)
3. Complaints which are essentially stylistic, e.g., the idea that it's wrong to write a new article if you haven't harmonized all the articles that it links to.

Because AfadsBad describes all three categories with OMG WORST THING EVAR shrieking outrage, it's difficult to take her claims about the scope of errors at anything other than a substantial discount. Nonetheless, I think there are enough errors of the first category turning up to warrant a more substantive response from Cwmhiraeth than "Oh, OK, I'll fix that." Back in fall 2012, there was a similar but more restrained debate (see Talk:Tree/Archive 2) where essentially the same point was raised: that she seems to be persistently working on scientific material that's just a bit too far over her head, and winds up regularly committing factual errors as a result.

I would like to see Cwmhiraeth explain how she's going to avoid committing these kind of errors in the future, not just agree that she'll fix them as they arise. The source of the criticism may be unpalatable, but this is not the first time she's been told she's botching science articles. Misplaced Pages will always be a collaborative process wherein we fix one another's errors, but if you're consistently generating extra work for people, you need to be thinking of ways to avoid doing so. And I would like to see AfadsBad find something else to scrutinize, because at this point, the usefulness of her technical knowledge in these critiques has been negated by her histrionics and lack of discrimination.

On a more general note, there's been some implication that the current situation has arisen because Cwmhiraeth is connected with the right people or projects and her critics are not. I am not convinced this is proven, simply because, in my experience, Misplaced Pages has an extremely high tolerance for editors who are productive, good-faith—and regularly make mistakes. In one case where I was peripherally involved, an editor was creating a large number of very short articles with various stylistic infelicities and periodic errors due to a failure to do basic cross-checking of a single source. He wasn't particularly well socially connected, as far as I can tell, and he wasn't doing it for DYK/GA/FA. But whenever other editors in the area got upset with his work, he refused to engage with their criticism, and someone always turned up to say "Look at all the work he does! You can't sanction him just because you don't like..." This dragged on for four years, with increasingly personal animosity between the editor and his critics, before ArbCom sanctioned him and admonished one of his principal critics for (self-admitted) misbehavior. For better or for worse, this kind of tolerance is endemic here, and trying to attribute it to a single small clique is not likely to be accurate. Choess (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyclopia:@Choess: I am beginning to see what you are all getting at and in that way this editor review may be quite helpful to me. Unfortunately AfadsBad has been shouting at me for such a long time that I have stopped taking any notice. She has done it on a blog that I ceased reading and a forum that I didn't even know existed. She lacks communication skills and, with a very few exceptions, has never explained precisely what she was objecting to in my articles.

I completely rewrote the article Tree referred to above, using a book as my main source. It became apparent later that the book was not reliable. I used it because my education included zoology but not botany and I did not know enough about plants. The "tree episode" was a salutary lesson. I now seem to be criticised for trying to make an article more comprehensive and comprehensible by adding unsuitable taxon-level information or descriptive words like woodlouse-like that are not in a written source (I have amended the article Glyptonotus antarcticus). Now that it has been brought to my attention, I can stop doing these things and can try to be more discerning in my choice of sources. I believe I am able to change my ways now that the problems with my articles are rather clearer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know enough about botany, why did you revert me on the C4 statement, saying again, in one of Misplaced Pages's top articles that plants with C4 photosynthesis open their stomata at night. I told you directly they don't, you simply reverted me, and now you say I never explained precisely. That's not true. When I explained precisely you reverted and scolded me. Or ignored the problem and left the article as is. How much time should I expend looking through your articles? Will you correct them all? -(AfadsBad (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I will correct all the ones you find where you clearly state what the problem is. Are we entering a new era of cooperation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• " I believe I am able to change my ways now that the problems with my articles are rather clearer."

Can you demonstrate this by fully correcting five of your articles not discussed here, find the errors, explain them, correct them? What should en.Misplaced Pages do about the other 1300 articles with errors that you created? --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I could deal with 5 articles as you suggest, but I don't admit to your "1300 articles with errors" statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the best way for you to show you can change your ways is to simply show you recognize your errors and know how to correct them, rather than my pointing them out. I will find five articles, basically at random from your articles created, plus maybe a GA or FA, to include a plant, vertebrate, an invertebrate. I can do it tonight. I won't pick articles that I know have errors, just a sample of articles. I don't really care about insubstantial errors, just errors that change information, or that mislead, or text that is imprecise. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Note, Black Kite or Casliber could also do this. I am just getting the articles created list and using a random number generator until I have a sample across time and organisms, probably not stubs, plus add the FAs and GAs and pick one of them, eliminate ones already error-identified. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

For a start, you can begin with Atriolum robustum, a DYK from February 2014 (so fairly recent, and an article you considered good enough to have on the main page), which contains some facts which are clearly contradicted by the sources you use to support them. I'm not qualified to judge everything in the article, so others may do a more thorough check, but at least one error is obvious enough to be found without expert scientific background. Oh, and I don't think you should ever use Whatsthatfish as a source, it's as far as I can tell a wiki, not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that that is not a good source to use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect you are referring to the depth range. Looking for information on the species I came upon this source and used the depth range that site gave, 5 to 18 metres. Later I found the DORIS site which was a better source but did not change the depth range figures. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I have now changed the article and removed the unreliable source you have identified above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, you gave "but in New Caledonia it is known from as deep as 300m", while the source you used states: "La petite synascidie-urne a été observée dès 12 m jusqu’à 300 m de profondeur, sur substrat* dur. En Nouvelle-Calédonie, elle n'est commune qu'au-delà de 40 m de profondeur." (shortened translation: "has been observed from 12m until 300m depth. In Nouvelle Caledonie, it's only common beneath 40m"). The 300m and the "New Caledonia" are from two different sentences, the first indicating that 300m is the general max depth, the second giving specific info on New Caledonia which doesn't discuss the 300m. Combining these two like you did was wrong (by removing this, you of course solved it, but it is important that you also understand where you went wrong). But thanks for the swift change. Like I said, I don't know whether the article is now correct, but the problems I found are now gone. It would be better if you could look at the conversions as well though, 1.5 cm really isn't one inch, and on the other hand an approximate value like "300m" shouldn't be converted to 984ft but to 1000ft. Fram (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to Fram's comments above, reefguide.com is not a reliable source. It is a self-published website (please review WP:SPS to see why citing such sources is against very longstanding policy) that carries an explicit disclaimer: "Disclaimer: I am not a taxonomist, just a recreational scuba diver with a keen interest in underwater photography and species identification. Therefore it is possible that some of the species identifications on this website are incorrect. I rely primarily on popular field guides and web resources, and there is also some limitation in identifying organisms exclusively from images. If you spot any mistakes please let me know, it will be appreciated." Such websites contain more errors than scholarly sites. Referencing such websites in Misplaced Pages propagates their errors at the level of the internet's top Google link for the topic, supplanting more reliable information available online and thus effectively impairing rather than enhancing access to the sum of human knowledge.

I also note that at the time you added the 5–18 m depth range, you did not cite the unreliable source that you had got the false information from; you only cited marinespecies.org (at the end of the sentence following). As some editors use paragraph-end rather than sentence-level citation, this would have created the impression that the information came from marinespecies.org (which is a reliable source), when in fact marinespecies.org does not say anything about the depth range of the species. Reliable sourcing and verifiability are very important if Misplaced Pages is supposed to work as intended. Andreas JN466 14:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. My French translation skills let me down, or at least the fact that I failed to notice the period. I agree with you about the conversions and will change them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A random five

These are five for Cwmhiraeth to find and correct errors.

• Ancylomenes pedersoni

• Termitotrox cupido

• Cyclosalpa bakeri

• Phormosoma placenta

• Halophila decipiens

• Salt Birth (This may have been repaired already. There are extensive edits with edit histories such as, "This is a GA article? Seriously? The editors who screwed this up shouldn't even be allowed to operate a shit pump," and calling a GAR "even more worthless than I thought.") How about Birth? Or we could just list the edits that were required to correct this after the GAR designation and you could explain why the edits were necessary to show your understanding and future abilities. I will think about this, also open to suggestions. Looking at the diffs, they appear to be mostly stylistic. Let's go with Birth--I picked back ups with the random draw, but I did not realize that I should have checked the edit history. I'm too busy, now.

I blew one, adding two invertebrates and omitted the plant but don't recall which invertebrate was randomly generated specifically for this or why I was looking at the other.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

To be fair to Cwmhiraeth, those harsh comments seem to be completely out of order for the utterly trivial changes that were being performed by the editor who made them. — Scott • talk 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the remarks appear to be out of line and deal with very trivial stylistic changes, at least one of which I think was incorrect and potentially confusing to readers. Stick with salt or move on to birth? Doesn't matter to me. I will probably look at both. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't think your chosen articles are random at all, I'm sure they are specially selected to trap me. Nevertheless, I will have a go at them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tthey appear to be mostly written by you, and you say you feel comfortable monitoring and correcting your errors, so I have no idea how they could "trap" you? Do you think I spent time looking for articles that have bad and obvious errors? Your finding and correcting them could only benefit en.Misplaced Pages. Would you like BlackKite to generate a different list of five random articles, the same general parameters to cover breadth of time editing Misplaced Pages, organisms, and hit DYKs plys a GA or FA? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Suggestion How about if we ask Black Kite or Casliber to generate a list, a DYK plant, vertebrate, invertebrate insect and mollusc, plus one of your uncommented GAs or FAs, that cover different periods of your editing, as the random five, so you don't feel I've picked articles to "trap" you? It only took about ten minutes, having to check that they were mostly yours. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

• No Cwmhiraeth, I don't think you should "have a go" at these vague accusations when you have been given no indication of what you should be looking for. AfadsBad is trying to publicly shame you and bludgeon you into insensibility by using techniques that convict you in advance. The Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer would have been wringing his hands in excitement had he been able to see AfadsBad at work. It seems AfadsBad is finding it difficult to come up with specific examples, and unless she does come up with specifics, you should just ignore her. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please desist from trying to derail this process. You are not helping here one bit. — Scott • talk 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Specifics are appropriate Scott. Not vague innuendoes. Confronting Cwmhiraeth with five random articles and demanding that she "find and correct errors" is not a fair way to go about this. AfadsBad needs to establish her claim that Cwmhiraeth is making grievous errors in "every article". That means there must be many thousands of serious errors. It would be a start if AfadsBad listed a representative sample of, say, 100 serious errors, surely a simple task given the scale of the problems she claims are there. But so far she has come up with very little. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is true that AfadsBad is behaving more in a bullying than a constructive way. Yet there is evidence that the problem is real. See the article below. I just reviewed it randomly, as Cwmhiraeth herself pointed me to it. It was rife with inaccuracies and half-fabricated information. And when I point it to her, she does not see what is wrong. Nasty as AfadsBad attitude might be (and I'm all for making such attitude stop), I fear she has a point. --cyclopia 10:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic - AfadsBad's hypothesis is that all of Cwmhiraeth's articles contain errors. That hypothesis is being tested right here, and so far, it's 100% accurate. If you have a differing hypothesis, then bring some evidence of its validity (namely, a Cwmhiraeth article free of the types of error so far discussed) to the table; otherwise, you're doing nothing to disprove AfadsBad's contention. — Scott • talk 14:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Boring clam

I don't really know how to do an editor review, so apologies if my comment is somehow not following some proper process. I just wanted to notice that Cwmhiraeth pointed me to her expansion of Boring clam in a chat on my talk page. She did her last edit after the beginning of this editor review, yet I already found a few inaccuracies there. There are a few examples of inaccuracies in the way she extracts information from sources. All this material has been added by Cwmhiraeth (see this diff and history).

• Source states that T.crocea is the smallest of Tridacnidae, but in the taxobox the species is assigned to Cardiidae (and Tridacnidae, as far as I understand, downranked as subfamily Tridacninae). Therefore the previous sentence in the article The boring clam is the smallest clam in its family is at least incompatible with source/taxonomy. Should be fixed, even if I'd like someone to check that Tridacnidae and Tridacninae are the same group, regardless of taxonomic rank.

This is a good point. When I started enlarging the article, the first thing I did was to check WoRMS about the classification. It stated that Tridacnidae was no longer valid and that the giant clams were now part of the subfamily Tridacninae in the family Cardiidae. So I changed the taxobox. My statement would have been correct if I had said subfamily. The source stated "It is the smallest of the giant clams" and at the time the source was written, the giant clams were classified as Tridacnidae. I'm not allowed to use the same wording, its close paraphrasing, so I substituted the word family. This was a mistake. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Source states: The shell is often slightly to moderately elongate, article stated The general shape of each valve is roundish or a slightly-elongated oval. No mention of an oval shape is ever made in the source; this is completely made up. Fixed here, hopefully.

The exact words "slightly to moderately elongate" is used in the source and to use it in the article is close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

But nowhere it mentions an oval. That word is completely made up. In fact, there is no trace of an oval shape whatsoever in the shell of Tridacna. --cyclopia 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)--cyclopia 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So how would you phrase it without close paraphrasing? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know: 'prolonged, either weakly or averagedly' is what using a thesaurus gives me. But this is beside the point. The point is that you made up an oval that exists nowhere. The point is that, to put it bluntly, you fabricated false information and you don't even recognize it.--cyclopia 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mildly elongated." --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Here are various ways of summarising The shell is often slightly to moderately elongate:

1. The shell often has a somewhat elongated shape.
2. In many individuals, the shell is mildly or moderately elongated.
3. The shell is frequently somewhat elongated.
4. It is common for the shell to have a somewhat elongated shape.
5. The shell often tends to be a little or moderately elongated. Andreas JN466 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Source states: The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface. - article stated The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface.. These describe two different things (colour is not necessarily a band, one of the hues listed is not merely pinkish but pinkish-orange). Fixed here. I am also unsure reefkeeping.com is a reliable source.

Close paraphrasing issues do not allow me to use the exact words used in the source. I think my phraseology is perfectly acceptable and this is a quibble. As to the reliability of the source, I gave the matter some consideration. The "Invertebrate corner" is well referenced and is part of an "online magazine for the marine aquarist" that was produced monthly from 2002 to 2009 as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable. You described a different thing from what the source describes. The source describes something which all around can feature a yellow, orange or pinkish-orange coloration, which sometimes forms a band at the upper margin. It became something that is always is greyish-white, except that sometimes has a coloured band (which can be pink, but not pink-orange, in your wording), and that band is at the margin of the shell (upper, lower, you don't say). These are two different things - really different. Shells which show a pink-orange color away from the margin do not exist in your description, but they may very well be common according to the source. If you don't understand why they are different, then you really have issues understanding language. This is very worrying.--cyclopia 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface." The source stated "The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface." I omit to mention the "sometimes tinted" bit but then I am summarising the source, ie I don't include every detail, I give the typical colouring and omit the occasional tinting in this instance. What do other people think about this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is these colorations, even "sometimes tinted" are usually being taken from tertiary sources. If the tertiary source is reliable, it may already have summarized the primary identifying features of a species, and by omitting something or changing something, you may have removed or altered a primary identifying characteristic. I can't find the article in my watch list, but you did this with a shrimp-like creature once, changing pink to orangish-pink or vice versa, and, without realizing it, you had changed a species characteristic to that of a different species. This requires major judgment on the part of the writer to know what is removable or not. Is this a species defining characteristic, that it can sometimes be tinted? If it is, the omission is not correct. Also, if it is important to describe the color of the valves, inaccurately describing them is not correct. Cyclopia is a biologist, and I am not, so my tendency would be to agree that his judgment on whether you can omit the tint is correct, and that you should be including it in the article if you are describing the valves. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Just for the record, I am a molecular biologist. While I have a soft spot for zoology, taxonomy, and even paleontology, it is not my bread and butter, so my judgement on these matters might not be optimal. Maybe the shell colour may be left out altogether, even if I would expect some description of it. My point is different: it is that Cwmhiraeth apparently, by attempting to avoid close paraphrasing, ends up writing stuff which is different in meaning from the source. She seems to be in good faith, but this is even worse: she seems simply blind to such differences of meaning.--cyclopia 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I did sidestep your point, although it is one I have made many times. As a molecular biologist you may not know what can be omitted in the color details, and neither do I. But, in this case, without expert knowledge, and such a claim has no validity on Misplaced Pages, we must go by what the source says, and, yes, what is in the article is not what is in the source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

(edit conflict)Cwmhiraeth, are you kidding me? It's not a matter of omitting details, it's a completely different meaning. Do you seriously, in good faith, do not realize this? If it is so, then you need edit restrictions now.--cyclopia 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a way the source statement could be expressed in different words, without changing the information:

Source: The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface.

Summary: The predominant shell colour is greyish-white. In some individuals, however, this is mixed with a yellow, orange or pink-orange hue, which may also be concentrated in a distinct band along the top margin of the shell, especially on the inside. Andreas JN466 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if something is really hard to paraphrase, it's always permissible to use it verbatim, enclosed in quotation marks, and with in-text attribution to the source. See WP:Plagiarism (intro). So you could write, According to source X, the shell is typically coloured greyish-white, "but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface.". Andreas JN466 03:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit worried that even after the beginning of the review Cwmhiraeth is still pouring inaccuracies in articles. This seems the general pattern, constant little but piling-up inaccuracies, over and over. --cyclopia 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth posted on my talk page; here I answer to avoid disgregating the discussion in multiple parallel threads.

• When writing an article you have to summarise the source without close paraphrasing. This means words and sentence structure have to differ from the source. Your "slightly to moderately elongate" is identical to the source and is close paraphrasing. Finding a different way of saying it is challenging. You did not like my attempt. - The problem, again, is that you added the word "oval" out of the blue. The word does not exist in the source (I checked, feel free to prove me wrong). And in fact, just for the record, as far as I can see the shell does not look at all like an oval. You did not paraphrase the source, you changed the meaning of it. That is the point. You can't use paraphrasing as an excuse, because you do not paraphrase, you change the meaning.
• If I get topic banned after making a complaint about being harassed, it will be a victory for AfadsBad, and imagine the jubilation on the Wikipediocracy forum! I don't like Wikipediocracy and they don't like me; I lurk the forum but I comment there very rarely. I also do not like the attitude of AfadsBad at all, which is problematic. Yet, even if AfadsBad often exaggerates the magnitude of issues she finds, it is correct that you are regularly introducing factual errors while "paraphrasing". You are often terribly sloppy. You read things that have different meanings as the same. You do not think anything of introducing made up information if this helps you "paraphrase". This is the problem. It pops out in many of the content you added -not all, probably, and not even all articles, but it is a regular pattern. Even if several of your articles turn out to be 100% correct, the fact they rely often on offline sources (which is normally allowed, of course) makes them suspicious. It is a problem. Stop making up excuses, act responsibly and acknowledge it, if you understand it; and if you don't, well, then AfadsBad is sadly right in thinking there are WP:COMPETENCE issues.--cyclopia 19:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. I am no scientist, but what cyclopia pointed out is worrying. Elongated doesn't paraphrase to oval, in that case I would rather re-use the word elongated than use oval. I also concur that the omission of other colored shells was a wrong decision. Cwmhiraeth, accuracy is much more important than paraphrasing. As Andreas has pointed out above, use quotes if necessary. I also urge Cwmhiraeth to refrain from adding more content to Misplaced Pages for the time being. Perhaps it would be better for you to go back and double check articles you have already edited. starship.paint "YES!" 04:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is very unfair to criticise in this way an unfinished article that I had only just started expanding. The description section was only a few hours old. If you look at my "Statement" above in connection with Glyptonotus antarcticus you will see how discouraging such actions are. As I continued with the article it is likely I would have changed the text to which your first two points refer as I got to find out more about the animal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not think it's unfair. You started editing the article on 10 April while this editor review was in full swing. You added the reefkeeping / Fatheree source into the article while adding the content of the oval and non-existence of other colored shells. Therefore, you should have read the source properly and paraphrased it properly the first time. There should be no need for you to "get to find out more" when you've already seen that source and tried to add content. Come on, you are on editor review, if you want to continue expanding articles during this time then you better do it correctly instead of giving your opponents more ammunition. starship.paint "YES!" 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It is even more worrying that she sidesteps the issue as one of wording, or something that has to do with an unfinished state. Granted, I think we all made mistakes during edits, maybe we've added stuff from one source before understanding that it was actually out of date, or stuff like that. The real problem is that Cwmhiraeth does not understand she is wrong, so instead of fixing the errors once pointed, she just doesn't get it. This is serious.--cyclopia 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Millepora alcicornis

• I can't find any trace of this concept: It shows a variety of different morphologies depending on its location, which led to it being given a number of scientific names by different authorities. in the source referred. Perhaps I just missed it but I'd like someone to check.
• Another colour description is slightly factually messed up: The cylindrical branches usually grow in a single plane and are cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips., while the source states: Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips.
• Article states The dactylzooids have hairlike tentacles covered in cnidoblasts. These release cnidocytes when prey is in close proximity. Stings from the cnidocytes immobilize an item of prey - No mention of cnidoblasts/cnidocytes is made in the source. Is this made up? From my superficial knowledge of Coelenterata it may make sense, but... Also, cnidoblast and cnidocyte are apparently synonimous (and indeed the two wikilinks redirect to the same page!) so what does it mean that one releases the other? Probably she meant they release a cnidocyst.

This is apparently a GA, and Cwmhiraeth edits are still standing, since January 2012. I am now going to fix this.--cyclopia 12:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

She now removed one of the unsourced sentences (and fixed a grammar slip of mine). However on my talk page it seems she still doesn't get it. I am worried.--cyclopia 13:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see in this edit you have removed some information from the lead. Does not reference #4 cover this point? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the reference that was attached to that sentence. Yep, from my reading of that source, it seems you can put it back with the correct source at the end of the sentence (I also find it quite annoying that the leads of articles you write never have inline sources, this makes it very hard to understand what comes from what. Also entire paragraphs are sourced only at the end. At least every sentence or two should be supported by a source, IMHO, unless a whole block is supported by a single source -perhaps there's some MOS contradicting this, but if so, it is a problem.)--cyclopia 13:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it in the source, which is rather long. Can one of you provide a page and paragraph before returning the sentence and citing it to this paper? --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

@Cyclopia. This is contrary to my understanding of the MoS. On this page it states: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." It also states: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." I have found at GA and FA we are told to put the citation at the end of the paragraph rather than cluttering up the text with repeated citations to the same source.

In this page it states: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." That is exactly what I try to do with regard to such things as the colour description for this fire coral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If the "not getting it" continues, this may need to be escalated. Given the facts that are emerging here (as opposed to assertions, which have been well-known for months), it's certainly too early for this editor review to be closed. — Scott • talk 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. I was pleased with this article which I think was my second GA. I started it from scratch and am considering whether to take it on to FA, perhaps you would be able to help me? I will work on your first point, but I think you will find the source information you mention in your third point if you look at the correct citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the unsuitable citation from the lead and the information is now cited in the body of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Scott. Your interventions are always so helpful ! Since you tell us you are not a friend of AfadsBad, why is it that you are editing her talk page and removing another person's post which was headed "Warning"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting (RE: Scott) - though you could be a little less caustic, Cwmhiraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 08:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you will see why Scott is not my favourite editor from this posting, also on AfadsBad's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly from this action (and the previous dismissal of Happy Attack Dog) I expect a bit better from an admin, on this front at least. starship.paint "YES!" 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pteria sterna

Another random DYK from February 2014. Checked one section, and soon found a clear factual error (you can try to correct it, or you can ask me to point it out, whichever you prefer). Checking further revealed an unrelated but even bigger error. I stopped my check after that second error. While I doubt that the assertion that all your articles have factual errors will turn out to be true, it seems clear to me from my checks and the rest of this discussion that you make too many small and large errors in articles which you consider to be finished (in the sense that your editing is done, not that they are FA-eligible of course). Coupled with the rather deficient DYK, GA and FA checks (Not related to your work, but I have this week alone pulled two approved hooks from DYK, and just corrected a third one, and that's what short cursory checks reveal), this means that loads of problematic articles grace our main page and that a lot of incorrect information gets spread by us. The problems of DYK e.a. can't be solved by you, but you are responsible for the articles you create and the ones you present for the main page. Some kind of mentoring, perhaps by a project or some willing experts, may help, but continuing without improvements is not really an option. Fram (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point it out the errors (so that we can assess it) and if possible fix them (so that no misinformation stays). Just stating that it is wrong is not very helpful. --cyclopia 15:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I had a look and immediately found it needed this fix. Cwmhiraeth mixed up females for males when taking information from this abstract, added a "height" where nowhere it was to be found. This is surely not a matter that can be justified by "paraphrasing". --cyclopia 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In Cwmhiraeth's defense, "height" can possibly be explained. Source: The size at first maturity was determined at 117.1 mm SH - I don't know what is SH here, but I was nearly tricked into thinking "Shell Height". However, if this wasn't the case here, "paraphrasing" size to height is a grevious error indeed. starship.paint "YES!" 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw SH as well and that was the reason I used "height". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not then correct this in the text to "shell height?" There is no advantage to not using the correct nomenclature when it works for the general reader, and this addresses both the precision and paraphrasing badly out of fear of plagiarism criticisms. If the jargon is tricky or unusual, then explain it parenthetically, but if it is straight forward and you know it, then use it direcly to benefit the reader moving between multiple artices on the same topic. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Found another error. 1586 (source) became "three years later" than 1535, apparently. How this happened I have no idea, can't even be a typo.--cyclopia 15:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First one you corrected was the first one I found as well, second one I hadn't even checked yet. The one you didn't find yet is IMO the most serious though. I'm logging off now, if no one has found it I'll post it on Monday! Fram (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead says the oyster's range extends to northern Peru, but this fact is not referenced, and the word "Peru" does not appear in the article body, therefore this claim is unsourced. The article also mentions "the tropical Pacific coast of America", but File:World map indicating tropics and subtropics.png suggests Baja California is north of the Tropic of Cancer, and hence "tropical" is inaccurate. A genuinely "tropical" entity might extend from central Mexico to northern Argentina. (bit nitpicking that one, I know, but you asked for errors and I think it is one). Ritchie333 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I noticed you didn't fix it. Please fix errors as soon as you find them. Otherwise this is a sterile exercise. I do not understand why @Fram: is making this a treasure hunt: the ultimate aim of this review is to have accurate articles.--cyclopia 16:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it - this isn't my area of expertise. The best thing I could do is put {{cn}} on it, and since the article has an overall {{disputed}} tag, there is no need to add any more as the reader has already been cautioned. If I were conducting the DYK review, I would have flagged both of my two queries above and expected a response from the nominator. Ritchie333 16:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It does occur in northern Peru and I have added a reference for this fact. There were indeed some bad inaccuracies in the article and criticism of it is wholly justified. I can understand the reason behind some of them, but will not burden you with explanations. I would welcome some form of mentoring as suggested by Fram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Conopeum seurati

Here we go again.

I don't much like this prejudicial opening remark, made solely for the amusement of other editors. What you imply is that you have been victorious and found another of my articles to criticise. As a matter of interest, do you keep a tally of any articles that you inspect but think unexceptional, or are all my articles bad? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's say the ones I am reporting are beyond 50% of what I've checked. Notice also that I report stuff where I can pick up inaccuracies in a few minutes -the low hanging fruits, so to say.--cyclopia 10:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't read into this too much. I didn't. cyclopia's not AfadsBad. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Cyclopia is a great asset to Misplaced Pages and in my opinion, AfadsBad is not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed statement that talked of colonies being sometimes "unattached balls". Unfortunately, while sources referenced , talk of sphere-like colonies, no one of them is "unattached" at all -we're talking of a sessile species, after all. Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't find a reference about free-floating balls of this bryozoan.

I made an assumption that a spherical colony was unattached but Cyclopia made the assumption that because Bryozoa in general are attached, this one cannot exist as an unattached ball. Is not this just the sort of argument that you are condemning me for, going from the general to the specific? I have come across at least one species of encrusting coral that sometimes form detached discs or balls. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the scientific knowledge, but why did you assume it was unattached and write it so? If it was not stated in the source then you should neither say "attached" nor "not attached"! starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to imagine any colonial organism like this described as a sphere unless it was unattached because otherwise there would have to be some structure attached to the substrate, and this would make the description spherical inaccurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is utter WP:OR. The fact that this specific species is sessile is sourced, instead, and nowhere it talks about it being free-floating. Here is another example where you made up false information.--cyclopia 10:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed misleading sentence "is native to the coasts of northern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea. It has spread to the Atlantic coast of Florida and to New Zealand". Actually one of the sources states that the range of the species is unknown, and both agree that it is just mainly recorded from Mediterranean and Europe. And also "it has spread" implies that it manages to get there by itself; it is instead regarded as introduced, according to the source. --cyclopia 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I think the word "introduced" sounds as if the introduction is purposeful so I try to avoid it. With regard to distribution, typical phrases I use are "native to", "occurs in" and "found in". It is helpful to use "native to" when there is general agreement among the sources that that is the region from which it originated. The complete range may be unknown but it does occur in the locations mentioned so I think that is worth mentioning. As for how it spreads, that is difficult to establish but it could be attached to floating debris so I think the use of the word spread is appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What you think about the word "introduced" is wrong, given that in biology introduced species is a technical concept. It means the species has been transferred there by humans, while saying "it is native from X and spread to Y" implies that the species has arrived there by its own means. --cyclopia 10:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any source that said that it is the region where the species originated or is native from, as opposed to simply "it is regularly found here"? Granted, it is plausible that it is native from there, but to state so is WP:OR --cyclopia 10:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have not explained why you left out that the full range was unknown. That's important to me at least. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I could have included it and it probably would have been a good idea, however I guess that the full range of the vast majority of marine organisms is unknown. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid a pattern of poor "paraphrasing" is becoming apparent, in an attempt to avoid plagiarism Cwmhiraeth was seemed to produced content that is simply... a little different from what the source said (once you consider the article as a whole). But a little different just doesn't cut it. starship.paint "YES!" 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I do not think Cyclopia's reasons for trashing the article are very good, they are mostly a matter of opinion. Cyclopia is a more experienced and knowledgeable editor than I am and I can see that I am going to be condemned as being a rotten editor whether I respond to the criticisms or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but to completely make up out of thin air that a sessile organism creates "unattached" spherical colonies is not a "matter of opinion". You basically wrote the bryozoan equivalent of "this species of tree sometimes goes and takes a walk".--cyclopia 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea whether cyclopia is a member of Wikipedocracy, but I sure am not. I don't think everybody here is waging a war against you. We're trying to remove the factual inaccuracies here, not here to "trash your articles" or condemn you as being rotten. An assumption of "unattachedment" and not saying "full range is unknown" aren't opinions. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a Wikipediocracy account but I basically never post there. We dislike each other quite a lot, with very few exceptions. The owner of the WO domain (I think Kohs is) once called me "reprehensible scum", so if I have any bias, it is against WO. --cyclopia 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Philaethria dido

• Other inaccuracies. The description of the range was a bit misleading but perhaps not formally incorrect. However, despite the source referred in the paragraph describing three subspecies clearly, with a clear geographic range, the article explicitly stated that only two exist, and described ranges somewhat accordingly.--cyclopia 10:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Apparently made up information. I can't find any mention of this peculiar feeding habit in any of the sources. Can someone double check if I missed it? --cyclopia 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Update: Apparently she wasn't the editor adding such information, my apologies to Cwmhiraeth - I didn't check the right diff. She did add sources apparently corroborating this information, without checking if it was unsourced or contrasting with it. However, I repeat, she didn't make up such information. Apologies again. --cyclopia 11:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I decided to expand this article a little because one of the images was to be "Picture of the day" on April 8th and the article was a bit stubby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, how didn't you notice that sources were contradicting the unsourced info in the article?--cyclopia 13:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Outsider's view

I'm a complete outsider to all of this, though I have followed this thread, and the related ones on Wikipediocracy, and I think one of the real problems here is that I don't think there is enough proper fact checking at GAs, and citing offline sources can be used by editors to game the system (whether by malice or incompetence) and sail through the review. What tends to happen then is that there is too much trust that the nominator is correct in their choice of sources. I think I put a only half joking remark in WP:Wikispeak that writing {{sfn|Bloggs|2005|pp=85-86}} sends out a huge "I know WP policies inside out and I am more clueful on this topic than you" regardless of whether the information actually matches the source.

I would not conduct a GA review unless I had a reasonable background understanding of the topic - without it, it's impossible to truly know what is inaccurate or misleading, and all the sources in the world won't tell you if major facts are missing from an article. And from what I can tell, that's what's caused this whole argument to erupt. The "blue number disease" is a serious problem on WP, but it's one so incredibly subtle and easily disguised that it hard to spot and correct. Writing FAs, real proper FAs that stand up to proper scrutiny to the world at large, not just a select number of Misplaced Pages editors, is a hard task and one has to ask the question - if you're so good at writing articles, why isn't somebody paying you to do so?

As for what to do with the work here, the topics are well outside of my area of expertise, but that makes it even more important that they are correct, because I trust the green blob at the top of an article to mean "this is true, and complete". I think the articles mentioned here have been sufficiently called into question that I would advise Cwmhiraeth in the short term to stop work completely and utterly, down tools, and do one of the many things life offers that doesn't have anything to do with sitting in front of a computer terminal. There's a wide world out there - go and enjoy it. Have fun. Ritchie333 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333, what you say of GAs and FAs is true. A biology-ralated article at GA is listed in the "Biology and medicine" section and is usually reviewed by someone who edits in that part of the project but there is still a degree of trust in the article's content. At FAC the reviewers may come from a wider range of interests but the article concerned is usually reviewed at least in part by editors in that field. But your statement "I trust the green blob at the top of an article to mean "this is true, and complete"" is not correct. GAs are required to be broad in their coverage and address the main aspects of the topic, but are not required to be comprehensive, a criterion only required at FA.

With regard to my own editing, I spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages because I love finding out about organisms and writing articles on them. The article mentioned above, Millepora alcicornis, was started from scratch by me and later brought to GA by me. Cyclopia made three points, one on the fire coral's colour, one based on Cyclopia selecting the wrong citation to question the contents of the article, and one other, now resolved, where a citation in the lead should not have been there but where the relevant information was cited in the body of the text. Are you seriously suggesting that Misplaced Pages would be the better if I had not written the article and the information on this species was still missing from Misplaced Pages? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedians on editor review