Dana Campbell

My activity

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "File:Britannica Dodo 2.jpg":

    but species name is incorrect in the figure description, should be P. solitaria, not P. solitarius.

    5 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "n338_w1150":

    Walter Rothschild commissioned British artist Frederick William Frohawk to restore the Réunion solitaire as both a white dodo, based on the Withoos painting, and as a distinct bird based on Dubois' description, for his 1907 book Extinct Birds. (according to Wikipedia, retrieved Sept. 18 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A9union_ibis&oldid=625940291

    5 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "n338_w1150":

    Walter Rothschild commissioned British artist Frederick William Frohawk to restore the Réunion solitaire as both a white dodo, based on the Withoos painting, and as a distinct bird based on Dubois' description, for his 1907 book Extinct Birds. (according to Wikipedia, retrieved Sept. 18 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org

    5 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "n338_w1150":

    incorrect association

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "n336_w1150":

    incorrect association

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "File:DodoTree-Naturalis-PeterMaas2009.jpg":

    wrong dodo

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "File:DodoTree-Naturalis-PeterMaas2009.jpg":

    wrong dodo

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "File:White dodo.jpg":

    White dodo=Threskiornis solitarius (Ibis)

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "File:Reunion dodo.jpg":

    Not correct name

    6 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "Brief Summary":

    Details here are not correct.

    11 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on an older version of Risks:

    not appropriate for genus level

    12 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on an older version of Risks:

    not appropriate for genus level

    12 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on an older version of Broad-striped Malagasy mongoose or vontsira fotsy (Galidictis fasciata):

    This is my third and last comment for now, Jonathan, sorry they are in reverse order from the way I wrote them...

    You were very thorough about citing sources to back up the info in your write-up. Thank you for this! One more thing - please be careful about how you write out your sources. They should be consistent in format and info. E.g.:

    Blench, Roger and Martin Walsh: Faunal names in Malagasy: their etymologies and implications for the prehistory of the East African coast (2009)

    should be

    Blench, R. and M. Walsh (2009). Faunal names in Malagasy: their etymologies and implications for the prehistory of the East African coast. And you should have more info here. What is this? A book? An article? A webpage? If there is an electronic link to it, please provide it.

    Hawkins, A.F.A. (2008) should have the web address/link. Since the access date listed here is way before you wrote this article, I'm thinking that you might not have directly used this reference (it was a reference inside a reference?) in which case you can leave it out here -- your reader can track back to the references within the source you used yourself.

    Animal Diversity Web (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Galidictis_fasciata/). At the bottom of the page for this source, ADW gives information about how to cite the article (many websites do this - it's very convenient and worth looking for!) Please use their format: Burrell, M. 2005. "Galidictis fasciata" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed September 09, 2014 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Galidictis_fasciata/

    your references numbers 8,9 and 13 (all websites like the ADW one above) also need more detailed citations. Please look back on the website. They should have author and date if at all possible. Reference 13 is wikipedia article - it needs the reference to permanent link you used. See here for how to cite a wikipedia article on EOL: http://eol.org/info/reusing_wikipedia (scroll down a little - the first part on this link doesn't apply to you here)

    14 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on an older version of Broad-striped Malagasy mongoose or vontsira fotsy (Galidictis fasciata):

    Another couple comments on your references, and hopefully this will answer the questions you asked but please let me know if you have further questions or this is not clear:

    The reference section ideally should be a list of references you cite in your text (giving the source of information you used to write the text). If you use info from some article (for e.g. an article on ADW) then you should list that article in your references, and cite it in the text where ever appropriate (i.e. where you give info from that article). THe article may use other references to support its info, but you don't need to put those references into your own reference list, unless you yourself use that reference from which to directly pull information. If you just used the ADW article, you direct your readers to the ADW article so your reader can tell where *you* got the info, then you can let the reader track that info back into the ADW article's references if they need/want to. If you want to make it very clear to the reader that there are many contributing sources/or varying opinions on a specific topic within an article you site, then you may want to say something in your citation like (I'm making this up): species size is controversial (Dollar 2000, and sources cited within). But this is something exceptional, not a usual case.

    If there are other articles that you didn't use in your own write-up, but you think might be of interest/use to readers, you might want to gather them into a little list at the end of your article (maybe title it "further information" -- by the way, please remove this heading from the top of your reference section, it doesn't serve any purpose here). I would avoid making this kind of "further information" list (or keep to a minimum) unless really necessary, though. Ideally, you would draw *something* from each of the sources in your own write-up so your readers can interpret why the articles are useful/important/why you list them. Even if it's just to say where relevant in your text something like: "for more details about reproduction, see Dollar (2000)"

    14 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on an older version of Broad-striped Malagasy mongoose or vontsira fotsy (Galidictis fasciata):

    Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks for your work on this - looks good. Watch typos (heads in first paragraph should be head). Also, I don't know of the symbol @ being used for "approximate" -- which is what I'm interpreting ou mean here, but this is confusing - could you change this symbol to a word? Genus, species and subspecies names are always italicized.

    I'm not sure why your references are becoming reorganized, possibly because they do not all start with numbers. You might try removing the number system and just use the first author's name and date in your text [e.g. (Dollar, 2000) instead of the numeral 2] -- this way you would not have the inconsistency of having some start with numbers.

    14 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "Notes":

    The genus is monotypic.

    18 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "Iucn red list info":

    Some good info here but your presentation is a little rough. Please correct capitalization and spacing and use full sentences.

    Also IUCN (your source) does not list this species as threatened - it is listed as least concern.

    May be better to put this into brief summary than under "habitat"

    18 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "Iucn red list info":

    This comment was deleted.

    18 days ago • deleted: 18 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "hebeloma crustuliniforme- poison pie or fairy cake fungi":

    not correctly licensed

    18 days ago

  • Profile picture of Dana Campbell who took this action.

    Dana Campbell commented on "hebeloma crustuliniforme- poison pie or fairy cake fungi":

    петя спасова, In cases like this where a Wikipedia article doesn't show up on the respective EOL page but it has good info it is great to add the article content. However, when you do this, two things you need to think about. 1. The version here needs to be licensed here under the same license as its original in wikipedia. This is cc-by-sa. 2. It would be much nicer if you formatted the text in a more appropriate way for EOL rather than simply copying and pasting everything. The images often show up as broken links when stuck into a EOL text file, and special text files in wikipedia (such as the mycomorpho box on the side) often don't format well. Especially for a brief summary, it would be nice to organize the paragraphs without unnecessary table of content summaries.

    18 days ago