Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Common toad/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:36, 27 September 2012 [1].

Common toad edit

Common toad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved good article status and has been through a peer review and I believe it is good enough to become a featured article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi, welcome (back) to FAC. I see LittleJerry talked you into this, so I'll blame him if anything goes wrong :) You've written a lot more than I have, but I hope my copyediting comments will be useful.
Thank you. Your comments and copyedits are most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is just an artifact on my screen, but the first toad image has a purplish hue. I don't know if that's intentional.
I have replaced the image.
  • "a group of closely related taxa": "taxon" is a very common word among biologists ... not so much among 13-year-olds (or adults for that matter), and the linked article didn't help much. At least the lead of an article on toads ought to be readable by smart, curious schoolkids who are willing to follow a few links. How about this? "a group of closely related animals" - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "race": Do toads have racial characteristics?
Changed to "type".
  • "north African": either North African or (maybe) northern African
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: publisher missing, formatting
Done.
  • FN3: page(s) missing, formatting
Done.
  • Ranges should use endashes
I believe they are all done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use consistent italicization
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN42, 44: formatting
I replaced these with easier to cite references.
Done. The whole of chapter 10 is online with no page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know how to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have made a request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yet from the Graphics Lab. Personally I like the vertical layout. Do others have views on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this request. I will do it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made this, what do you think?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That would be fine, although I must admit that I prefer the vertical one, the dimensions of which are more appealing. For the moment, I have resized the image in the article so that it fits better. Do you think that looks OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks better, but another thing is that the MOS says that text shouldn't be "sandwiched" between images, and that section has a "wall" of images on both sides. If this image was horizontal, you would have room to left align more of the other images, for example, and there would not be so much "sandwiching". FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I see you still have the information from the deleted low quality source in the discussion of toads and witches. The witchhunt book contains some information not included it the article. I think you should have it replace the now uncited text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some material added, other uncited material cut out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found a better source for the claim about Zoroaster, but since be lived in Iran can it even related to this species? LittleJerry (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroaster removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns have been addressed. I do however think you should check out that coat of arms image since the description labels them frogs not toads. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical check I'll do a proper review when I have more time, just some results from running duplicate links, dab and link tools Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All links to external sites are working
  • Link "genome" and "steroid", link "Least Concern" and "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" at first occurrence Done.
  • Up to you, but the original Linnaeus source is {{cite book | last=Linnaeus | first=C | authorlink=Carolus Linnaeus | title=Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. | publisher=Holmiae. (Laurentii Salvii). | date=1758| language = Latin |page=120}} Done.
  • In the light of Eau's comments below, I think you need the original. If you change the page range to 210–212, that covers all the then known toads, and all the frogs except the tree frogs Hyla, which Linnaeus had already put in a separate genus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left the page range at 648-649 because that is correct in the source I have used. 210-212 refers to birds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to show subspecies consistently, fine to say they are sometimes treated as full species, but you put "split into B. bufo and B. verrucosissimus", as if you accept them as full species, and then immediately treat them as subspecies.
This is difficult. Should I accept the findings of the 2012 study, give them all full species status and remove the subspecies section entirely? Another point, they can't seem to decide whether the specific name should be "verrucosissimus" or "verrucosissima". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main thing is to decide one way or another, it's your judgement whether the research is accepted enough to drop the ssp, but as long as you have a defensible position, and are consistent, it's your call. I had a similar problem with Water Rail, where some authorities split the eastern race Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten this section accepting that the former subspecies are now considered to be full species. This agrees with their treatment in AmphibiaWeb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth saying that Bufo is Latin for toad? Done.
  • First two lines of description have three large and two grow Reworded.
  • small warts — not actually warts, look like warts Done.
  • The paratoid glands of both are parallel rather than slanting as in the common toad.[9] It also... — "It" refers back to the glands Done.
  • Pelophylax kl. Esculentus — kl.? Removed.
The edible frog is apparently a hybrid between P.ridibundus and P.lessonae, and the kl. is apparently short for klepton. The wikipedia article on this frog uses it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a large appetite — compared to? Done.
  • The sloughed skin is eaten — by? Done.
  • bufotoxin called bufagin — toxin better, we haven't been told yet what bufotoxin is yet Done.
  • They questioned how an air-breathing animal could survive at such depths — So how can it? Reworded.
*First para of "Reproduction" overworks pond Done.
  • The males mount on the females' backs— don't need on Done.
  • predation by otters and increased competition from the frog Rana perezi which both seem to be extending their ranges — your two subjects are "predation" and the frog Done.
  • cinobufagin, — does this occur in this species? It seems not. I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clever men at Oxford — I didn't think we linked inside quotes? Done.
  • Image captions shouldn't normally include the name of the article's subject If an image is of a common toad walking, do you approve the caption "Toad walking" or what else would you suggest?
  • It's a guideline, most of the images don't need the name, but some, like the "walking" one, it might read better with it in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Removed those that I thought were unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need retrieval dates for Shakespeare, I don't think he's planning a rewrite (: Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the changes to the taxonomy section, Cwmhiraeth asked me to look again to see if there were any further concerns. I think the present text is a comprehensive and clear summary of the current situation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments from EauOo Eau (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The common toad was first given the binomial name Rana bufo by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae in 1758.[3]" Your citing this to Linnaeus (in translation) amounts to original research. Please find a reliably secondary or tertiary source.
  • I've suggested above using the original source, better than a translation. For his binomials, it's normal to ref to Linnaeus, and I can point you to several existing FAs which do that. I don't think that this is a valid point unless you doubt that attribution Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although done, it is OR, and should be limited to the taxonomy box. If the genus name has been changed, the entire name shouls be cited at least once with the correct authorities and this would include the taxonomic citation usable for this statement. The Linneaus can be uses in addition but not stand alone. Please list existing FAs that do this, and I will correct them. Eau (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this work, he placed all the frogs and toads in the single genus Rana." All frogs and toads known at the time? All European frogs and toads? All specimen-available frogs and toads from lands explored by Europeans? This statement also requires a citation.
  • "It later became apparent that this genus should be subdivided, and in 1768, the Austrian naturalist Josephus Nicolaus Laurenti placed the common toad in the genus Bufo, naming it Bufo bufo." Unsourced.
  • "The toads in this genus are known as true toads and are characterised by having no teeth, dry warty skin and horizontal pupils." This source gives no description of the characteristics of the genus. Maybe you mixed up the source, or there is a subpage?
I have removed the statement.
  • "Bufo bufo is now considered to be a species complex, a group of closely related species with unclear dividing lines between them." The reason for a species complex, though, is recent speciation, and the article you cite does delve into this.
I have altered the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is believed that the modern subspecies are descended from a common, preglacial ancestral form." No, the other four subspecies are believed to form a "group of ancient related preglacial subspecies," this does not describe their descent from a common ancestor.::I have altered the wording. Would it not be fair to say that subspecies, by definition, have a common ancestor? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is believed that the range of the ancestral form extended into Asia but that isolation between an eastern and western type occurred as a result of greater aridity and desertification in the Middle East during the Middle Miocene.[6]" This source appears to remove glaciation as a dividing line for ancestral forms as used above.
I don't believe the article states that glaciation is a dividing line for ancestral forms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exact systematic relationships between the subspecies remains unclear.[5]" Do you mean taxonomic relationships or systematic relationships?
Well, the Systematics page of wikipedia states "The term "systematics" is sometimes used synonymously with "taxonomy"". Nevertheless I have changed the word systematic to taxonomic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some authorities consider B. verrucosissimus to be a species in its own right while others consider it a subspecies of the common toad, B. bufo verrucosissimus." Which authorities consider it to be a subspecies, which a species, and why?
I have removed the statement.
  • "Similarly, there is confusion as to whether B. spinosus should be recognised as a species or as a subspecies.[7]" This is a blog. If Naish published on toads, these can be used as a source, but I disagree with using his blog, particularly on issues of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a rigorous science and does not use blogging for establishing taxonomies.
Darren Naish is a research fellow at tthe University of Portsmouth, a very respected tetrapod paleontologist who has published a number of papers. He is the author of the Tetrapod Zoology blog and is making the exact point that I try to make in the article. I believe this can be regarded as a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now rewritten parts of the taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

I know Darren Naish, and you read this sentence wrong, and transcribed the information incorrectly, and a blog is not the place to decide the uncertainty about a species/subspecies. If there really is such uncertainty it will be cited elsewhere.
  • I have now rewritten that part of the taxonomy section and removed Darren Naish's blog material from it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just noticed it was up for FAC. I don't have issues other than the ones I brought up during peer review, but I wondered if a horizontal version could be made of the tadpole image. It protrudes very far down, in a way which interferes with many unrelated sections. Image licenses look good, though the two first ones could need description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have resized the image and moved the amplexus image. The result looks better on my screen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also made a collapsible synonyms list as you suggested. Were there any other outstanding issues you had? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you've covered it well. Though I was told in a GA recently that I should add description templates to images on Commons I used which lacked ones, and the one in the taxobox and description sections here do. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
There still seems to be an issue with subspecies. You mention different subspecies in the article body, but not in the taxonomy section. If any are recognised, they should be listed under taxonomy. Done. If possible, authorship of the synonyms should be listed along the names.FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
And another thing, could maybe be nice to mention in the image captions where the photos are taken, as this might have implications for what subgroups the pictured individuals belong to.FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done where possible.[reply]
There is still mention of subspecies: "The subspecies Bufo bufo gredosicola is restricted to". FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep nagging about the species/subspecies issue, but now the taxonomy section mentions both a separate species, Bufo spinosus, and that Bufo bufo spinosus is a junior synonym of Bufo verrucosissimus. The synonym list for Bufo bufo also lists Bufo bufo spinosus. What is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the taxonomy is exceptionally confusing, and rather than change the Taxonomy section again now (and probably get it wrong again) I will rely on Eau's kind offer below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are working so hard on this article, I cannot believe it. There are still areas you just do not get about writing about biology, though; you can't just remove information you don't understand. If you remind me Friday afternoon, I will see what I can do to finish up the problems, but I am too busy right now. I do appreciate how much work you are putting into this, and I would love to see an article like this on the main page, but I am unwilling to ask you to keep correcting things you don't have the background for. I also appreciate that you are learning, listening to what people say, but you have a huge gap in your ability to deal with the highly technical (bio), and we have to move forward. Eau (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am most grateful for your help in this field in which I agree I have insufficient knowledge. Yesterday I changed the list of synonyms to that provided by a better source (Frost 2011) and it currently states that Bufo (Bufo) spinosus and Bufo spinosus are both synonyms of Bufo bufo. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Most of the images appear fine from a copyright perspective. One possible exception is the Mr. Toad picture which may not be in the PD in certain countries. LittleJerry (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a pre-1923 US edition of the book, with original drawings made for it by a US artist, so it should be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to state in the captions where each of the photographs was taken? Users interested in that can look at the image page. Pokajanje|Talk 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image locations at FunkMonk's suggestion made above on September 8th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant for population identification. FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten parts of the "Taxonomy" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions are nice. I noticed a few inconsistencies. If Bufo spinosus has been split off, then it shouldn't be listed as synonym of Bufo bufo? Then you also mention Bufo bufo gredosicola as valid, yet it is also listed as a synonym. Are there perhaps other valid subspecies? Bufo bufo bufo would certainly be valid, otherwise I assume Bufo bufo gredosicola wouldn't be possible to separate as a subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with Frost and stated that Bufo bufo gredosicola is a synonym and I have removed Bufo spinosus from the list of synonyms. This conforms with both AmphibiaWeb and Wikispecies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've been thinking for a while that it could be interesting to have a photo of a skeleton in the taxonomy section, to display some anatomy. This is the best one I could find[3], maybe something to consider. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I see three variations of Bufo spinosus are still in the taxobox, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the synonyms list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

Article: "It is largely found in forested areas with coniferous, deciduous and mixed woodland, especially in wet locations."
Cite 16: "The Common Toad is associated mainly with the forest zone (in conifer, mixed and deciduous forests), where it prefers conifer forests with marshes."
Article: "The common toad cannot be legally sold or traded in the United Kingdom..."
Cite 36: "In Britain, the common toad is protected by law from sale and trade."
Article: "Atropine, phenytoin, cholestyramine and lidocaine may prove useful in its management."
Cite 44: Article lists these as treatments.
Article: "The common frog (Rana temporaria) is also similar in appearance but it has a less rounded snout, a more angular shape and a damp smooth skin, and usually moves by leaping"
Cite 17: "Common Toads often breed in the same water as the Common Frog (Rana temporaria) and may be confused with them. At 8 to 13cm (3 - 5in) the toad is larger than the frog (6 - 9cm, 2.5 - 3.5in) which prefers to hop whereas the toad generally walks. The toad has a rounder snout than frogs when viewed from above and on close inspection, the warty skin of the toad identifies it from frogs."

The article appears to reflect the sources overall, although the last source one doesn't mention shape. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All issues I have brought up on the talk page and during peer review have been addressed. To me it looks well written and to cover the subject comprehensively. I've made a few cosmetic edits, but I don't think my involvement in the article is too big for me to vote. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Common_toad/archive1&oldid=1144458231"