Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green and Golden Bell Frog

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Green and Golden Bell Frog[edit]

This article is a couple of pages longer than it was about 3 weeks ago when I started working on it. It has undergone a peer review with brought up all the content that needed to go into. It has been partially copy-edited by myself, liquidGhoul and Peta and fully copyedited by Samsara. It is well reference and I think it is FA quality. If you find anything that you think needs to be referenced please let me know and I can fix it up. Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks quite good from a first glance-through. Nice work. Jkelly 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Conservation status" needs some reorganisation and copyediting. Why do the factors "seem to be" involved? The salinity section reads like an afterthought.Jkelly 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll move the salinity section into "ecology and behaviour". -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a well-researched animal piece.--K.C. Tang 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You have to love frogs. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article has come along way since I de-stubbed it.--Tnarg12345 09:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great info and pictures Cas Liber 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rlevse 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak object Support. The article is excellent but I have a few minor concerns.
  • "The species is now classified within the Litoria aurea complex". What is the Litoria aurea complex?
The aurea complex is a group of very similar frogs. The Litoria genus can be broken up into several complexes. The species in the complex are outlined in the article.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be explained in the article? Joelito (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Froggydarb croak 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tadpoles of the Green and Golden Bell Frog are large, reaching 80 mm (3.15 in) in length". Is this accurate? The species reaches a maximum of 110 mm which makes me question if tadpoles can really reach that length.
Bell frog tadpoles can get that large.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given this species' ability to live in disturbed habitat, pollution and habitat loss are unlikely to be the main cause of the population decline, although they may contribute". Is this a logical inference by the article's authors? If not can we have a citation for this sentence?
Bell frogs are often found in some of the most polluted habitats around.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is not found in the article. Please include it and i f possible cite it. Joelito (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've totally deleted the sentence, I goes against what the rest of the article says and it would appear that both pollution and habitat loss/degredation are some of the major contributors to population decline, heres a link (under "Major Threats") -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that makes the article contradict itself, disused industrial sites aren't exactly pristine.--Tnarg12345 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I've reworded it and placed it back in there. -- Froggydarb croak 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the image of the species's New Zealand range be changed so that the color scheme follows the Australia image? (minor issue)
    Nop, there are no maps on Wiki or on Commons, of New Zealand, that are in the same colour scheme as the Australian map. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would benefit from a light copyediting.

I will change to support once this issues have either been corrected or explained to me. Joelito (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of your comments have now benn addressed :) -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on prior support As usual, I went briefly to the bottom and middle of the article and looked at a random sample. Here is the first paragraph my eyes landed on:
    • Tadpoles were released, over a number of years into specially designed pond and dams at Collaroy in northern Sydney. Bell Frogs had previously been located in the area, however the population had been lost. Although large number of tadpoles being released the program has only had minor sucess. Adult Bell Frogs are now occasionally found on golf course, however a permanent breeding population is yet to be established.
This section was added after I nominated it, I will try and fix it up. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at rewording it: "Between 1998 and 2004, tadpoles were released into specially designed ponds and dams on Long Reef Golf Course at Collaroy in northern Sydney. Green and Golden Bell Frogs had previously been located in the area, however the population had since been lost. Although a large number of tadpoles were released during the program it had almost no sucess. Adult Bell Frogs are occasionally found on golf course, however a permanent breeding population is yet to be established." -- Froggydarb croak 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see five Supports above with little commentary. Based on the sample text above, I am curious about how many of the supporting reviewers actually read the article? Is this featured article prose?
  • The article is also underreferenced. Given that it already has so much support, why should I bother to object? Do we really promote articles to FA based on great pictures? (By the way, great pictures.) Sandy 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it needs a copyediting but the article is not underreferenced. Remember that not all references exist in the form of in-line citations. Maybe the article needs more in-lines but plenty of book references are available in the ref section. Joelito (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I need to be more careful in my terminology. By underreferenced, I was referring to a need for more inline citations. I'll correct my terminology on that in the future :-) Sandy 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is underreferenced, look at White's Tree Frog it has six inline refs and it is FA. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't refer to existing FAs for comparison: it might not meet current FA standards. Sandy 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This is a good candidate, but there are still glitches in the prose. For example:
    • "The bone and cartilage structural formations of the Green and Golden Bell Frog are closest to that of species in the family Hylidae." This is unclear: "that" should be "those", I presume, but I guess you don't mean "all" species in the family Hylidae, do you? If not, can you specify them, or say "most species in", or something like that?
    • "south-east"—I wonder whether this, and related epithets, can be conflated into one word. It's increasingly common to do so, and neater, IMV. They occur quite a lot.
  • I'm unsure on what else to use. These terms are frquently used in field guides. -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar." Do these two ideas belong in the one sentence, at least closely joined as they are by the glue of ", and"? Unsure how to fix.
  • They were together to point out that those species (aurea, raniformis and castenea) may be confused with each other. It now reads: "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar, these factors may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has large yellow spots present on its the thighs and has not been seen for a number of years, so may now be extinct." Same issue again. Can you re-allocate the ideas among the sentences in this paragraph so that they're all smoothly integrated into their sentences? Perhaps check the rest for the same issue. More copy-editing require. Tony 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded it: The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has not been seen since 1980 and may now be extinct, although the large yellow spots present on its thighs help distinguish it from the Green and Golden Bell Frog. -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's very good; interesting, well-written, good length. I would like to see a few more inline references so that readers can see where particular points have come from. Also, I was about to fix something, but I'm not sure what the second means: "In 1998 a captive breeding program was set up ... It involved captive captive breeding frogs and releasing large numbers of tadpoles back into the wild ..." There are two captives, but should it say "it involved captive-bred frogs," or "it involved breeding frogs in captivity," or perhaps something else? Also, given that you say it was a captive breeding program, is it necessary to add that it involved frogs who were bred in captivity? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll read the entire paragraph again, but I'd say it is a typo :) -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I made it "...the captive breeding of wild frogs..." -- Froggydarb croak 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good article on the whole. I will suggest a few items that could be improved:
    • "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar, these factors may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Beyond being a run-on sentence, this overlaps with Tony's concern above. I suggest making it clearer in this area that you are providing a brief description of how to distinguish the species. I think that would address Tony's concern that one sentence is describing both range/habitat and appearance.
    • "When in breeding condition, males have swollen thumbs, as they develop nuptial pads used to grip females during mating." Clarify "they"--males or thumbs? How about ""When in breeding condition, males develop nuptial pads on their thumbs, which are used to grip females during mating."
    • The references refer to both "Australian Zoologist" and "Aust. Zool.", and some article titles are in quotes, others aren't.
  • For the record, I copy-edited this article (a claim which many make, it seems) shortly after nomination. When I do this, it's for a few reasons: a) I feel like it; b) it is more pragmatic to make many types of copy improvements than to talk about what fixes should be made; and c) I hope someone will find it helpful towards their FA nom. I think you'd be seeing more oppositions on the basis of prose otherwise. (e.g. from Aug. 5: "The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has large yellow spots present in the thighs and not being seen for a number of years and may now be extinct, the Growling Grass Frog, which is very similar to the Green and Golden Bell Frog, can only be readily distinguished by raised bumps on the dorsal surface.") Outriggr 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed, I think, is this alright: "The range of both L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, this as well as physical similarities may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Thanks for your copyedit. -- Froggydarb croak 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that gets the idea across better. Regarding the sentence itself, I'd say, "The ranges of both L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with that of the Green and Golden Bell Frog[run-on sentence; need period or semi-colon]. The similarities in range and physical appearance can make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Thanks, Outriggr 07:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - poor representation of the species; doesnt cover as much information as it should. Look here for the areas missing. [1] - but I think that it has a chance for Featured Article status in the long run. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is so poorly represented, can you please specify what part of the article is and why. Nothing on that website isn't included in the article, and if there is info that isn't included, it is because it can't be cited to an original paper. -- Froggydarb croak 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in that web link is covered in the article, plus a lot more. I think that this article is one of the best representations of the species around.--Tnarg12345 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess he coudn't of read the whole article. I took a look at GoOdCoNtEnT's contributions and saw that he went through and voted on 32 articles in the space of 65 minutes that’s about an article every 2 minutes. Those 32 articles consisted of roughly 210 pages (more on a smaller resolution, mine is 1280x960). Each page consists of roughly 30 lines (about 20 on 1024x728 resolution), this is about 760 words and 500 a page respectively. This equates to about 3 pages a minute, therefore between 90 and 60 lines a minutes, therefore between 2280 and 1500 words a minute, therefore between 38 and 25 words a second. Damn, I wish I could read that fast. And remember that doesn’t take into account the time it took to right and save his comment on each nomination page. -- Froggydarb croak 09:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that the user has nominated three FACs at once, currently on this page. I wouldn't worry about his comment; I trust it will be weighted appropriately (→0) in the scheme of things. Outriggr 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that four. Sandy 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see something mentioned/cited about the old 'second airport' proposal at Homebush Bay in the conservation section, (and any other such proposals defeated by the frog) - if memory serves, once the Green and Golden Bell Frog was discovered to be present, the project there was swiftly abandoned. (this is about ten years ago...) Just with the referencing, some of the references lack full citations. What's the difference between cited references, and references? Is there any way to merge either both of these, or references with external links (probably further reading).. Also, it would be good to mention the other governmental plans for the Frog, such as the NPWS Recovery Plan, as that also has significance. If you could reference a page with a sound of the frog when you describe it, that would be very good.  :) You've done excellent work on this page, I hope it makes it to FA! - Malkinann 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there was a airport proposal at Homebush as well. The proposal for an airport at Kooragang Island was axed because of this frog. --liquidGhoul 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may very well be getting confused - which is all the more reason why this stuff should be in the article!  ;) Taking a peek at {{cite web}} may help with the citation troubles. - Malkinann 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm not exactly sure what you mean about references lacking full citation. -- Froggydarb croak 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstracts for some papers may be available on pubmed, for example. However, the best template to use now is {{cite science}}. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look through all the Green and Golden Bell Frog publications on pubmed they don't have any extracts of current inline citations. Cheers -- Froggydarb croak 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Green_and_Golden_Bell_Frog&oldid=1138461931"