Talk:Lithodytes

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Gold-striped frog

• ... that the gold-striped frog (pictured) sometimes breeds inside an active nest of leafcutter ants?

• Reviewed: William G. King Jr.

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The hook fact is not clearly stated and cited at a specific point within the article. It seems reasonably well supported by the Herpetology Notes source but that is not cited directly after a sentence about the breeding.
• Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm doing this review as a QPQ favour for User:Broichmore, who needs one now. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I have added a suitable statement and reference now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That hook support is adequate, thanks, and so it's now good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

{{Overall it is a very good Wikipedia page. I really like that you have so many categories thus present so much useful information. But I have a clarification problem regarding the conservation section. Is that the distribution range decline or the population decline or both? Darreciel (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)}}

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Froggo1324 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eylul.horozoglu, Yarlagaddas, Darreciel.

— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I changed a big portion of how the article was structured. I made it fit the Wikipedia guidelines that we were provided but the Social Behavior section fit together too much for me to try to cut out and replace the different parts in their correct sections, so I just left it as it was. Overall, there were a lot of weirdly worded sentences that I had to fix and also there were a lot of mentions of previous research, which I'm pretty sure Wikipedia prefers you leave out. I didn't want to take a big chunk away from the article so I left them in, but it might be helpful to rephrase them in the future so remove phrases like "a study found". Eylul.horozoglu (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In this paper it seems fairly evident in the sections that the washu student worked in when compared to other sections. Categories like phylogeny, social behavior, and protective coloration and behavior have proper sub sections are contain very quality information in a very well written format. I think similar content and writing in the other key essential categories could be vital in making this a good article. However, I think this section was well written. There were very few grammatical errors, structural errors or anything or that sort. I made a few edits where I saw fit, but all were extremely minor. Like the other two articles I think images would be very, very beneficial, especially when talking about categories like Batesian mimicry and Mullerian mimicry. The visuals provide a layer of detail that words cannot meet. I also think there were many sentences in this article that seemed very obvious from a research paper or from the references listed, however they were not cited. I think another run through with the adding of citations would be needed. I think the structure of the article after the previous peer review now makes the order of the flow of the paper much better. I think there were a lot grammatical errors in the other sections and despite the initial peer review there were still some left. I tried to fix whatever I noticed. I also did notice the referencing of studies fairly often which if you notice from many other good articles that portion is typically not included. I also think the addition of sub sections in the other headings when more information is added will help organize the structure of the paper further Yarlagaddas (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)