Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese fire-bellied newt/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2023 [1].

---

Japanese fire-bellied newt

Nominator(s): An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a species of newt endemic to Japan. It is found throughout much of the archipelago, in a wide range of habitats. It is rated as near-threatened, and its population is at risk of capture for the pet trade and human development. This is my first FAC nomination, so please forgive my inexperience. This was previously successfully nominated for GA status, and both before and during the review, I went to great lengths to include as much relevant information and context as possible. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• File:Brehms_Tierleben._Allgemeine_kunde_des_Tierreichs_(1911)_(20226567219).jpg: is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The uploader states that it is public domain, but not on what grounds. What would your suggestion be? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The artist's name (Josef Fleischmann) can be seen in the lower right, and he appeared to have died in 1925[2], making this public domain, as he died more than 70 years ago and it was published in Europe. So you should add the same tag as here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Can't see a saved edit, so added[4] it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I could've sworn it saved. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Henni147

This is my first FAC review for an article in the biology category, so it's a bit of uncharged territory for me, but I'd like to leave some comments. As a non-specialist, I can attest that the article is reader-friendly and easy to understand.

Extended content

Structure: It might be smart to make the headings and section order uniform with this article about the Alpine newt, which already has featured status. This would improve the layout consistency across Wikipedia. That's something I would normally wholeheartedly support, but I think they are already quite similar, and making them more similar might break up the article more than necessary. As for the heading names, throughout animal articles in general, "Lifecycle and behaviour" is much less standard than "Behavior and ecology", same goes for "Captivity" vs "In captivity" and "Threats and conservation" vs "Conservation". If anything, the other article should be changed. Still, I rearranged the lead to resemble that of the other article more. Bundling of sub-sections: This is rather a matter of taste, but I prefer to merge sub-sections that consist of only one short paragraph to one proper section. This reduces the amount of empty space around the text, which is crucial for print versions of the article. Yes, that was brought up during the GA review. I've trimmed it even further, so hopefully that's good enough (let me know if you would recommend even more). Abbreviations: In scientific and encyclopedic articles, it is generally discouraged to use abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence like "C." at the beginning of the section "Evolution and hybridization". If possible, I recommend to rephrase those sentences a bit. Also, according to MOS:1STOCC, special terms should be introduced in the full version at their first occurrence like "DVM". Better write here: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Lianne McLeod described them as "low-maintenance", noting that captive newts enjoy bloodworms, ... I changed it as you suggested for both instances, so it should be okay. Linking: According to MOS:OVERLINK, common words like "forest" or "Japan" shouldn't be linked. However, I would place a link to the article habitat in the lead, which is a biological term and may not be known by casual readers. Also, try to avoid side-by-side links like "newt endemic" in the first sentence of the lead. I removed links from some simple words, and added one to habitat. I also removed the link to newt, since rewording to keep it and the nearby link separate would have looked strange. Images: All images need alternative texts for the accessbility with screenreaders. If the caption sufficiently describes the image, add |alt=refer to caption. Also, change the parameter image: to File: and remove fixed image sizes like the "250px" from the following image: [[image:Cynops pyrrhogaster (under s4).jpg|thumb|right|250px|Japanese fire-belled newt on its back, with the bright red ventral region clearly visible]] Done (all of the current captions should work as alt text, so I used them.) Referencing: Online sources should be archived with the Wayback Machine or a comparable service. I can help with that if needed. Otherwise, the use of inline citations and sourcing looks good. According to Earwig's copyvio detector, there is no serious copy-violation of text (3.8% similarity at max). I yet have to take a closer look at the citation of print sources. I thought IABot could do that automatically, but it hasn't been working for me. I may require assistance. It might've been because I was shy of my thousandth edit, which I just achieved. It worked now. That's it from me at first look. I may give a more detailed feedback about single sections and citations later, but this will take a bit more time. Overall, the article looks promising and I think that with some adjustments it has the potential to be promoted for FAC. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Henni147 thank you very much. I've replied to all your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you very much for your detailed comments and quick adjustments! The article structure looks much better already, and if you say that these headings are more the standard, then I fully support to keep them as they are. I will take a closer look at the changes later. Henni147 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally found the time to take a second look at the prose text. Here are some comments:

• Lead
  • "Eggs are laid separately, hatching after about 3 weeks." → Change "3" to "three". According to MOS:NUMERAL, integers smaller than nine should be spelled out in prose text.
  • "Cynops pyrrhogaster diverged from its close relative, C. ensicauda, about 13.75 million years ago" → If C. ensicauda is the only close relative of C. pyrrhogaster in existence, the commas have to stay. Otherwise they must be removed here (which is probably the case).
• Ethymology and taxonomy
  • "Pyrrhogaster is derived from Greek, purrhos for fire and gastēr for belly." → Use the "literal translation"-template here with ({{lit|fire}}) instead of "for fire" and ({{lit|belly}}) instead of "for belly".
  • Punctuation: "Studies examining morphological and geographic variation had recognized six races: Tohoku, Kanto, Atsumi, intermediate, Sasayama, and Hiroshima. However modern molecular analysis [...]"
  • "At that time, the land that would become the Japanese islands — connected to the mainland at that time — likely had a subtropical climate" → remove duplicate "at that time" and the spacing around em-dashes, see MOS:DASH.
  • Change the abbreviation "MYA" to "Mya" and link to myr at its first occurrence.
  • Use the piped link [[Chūgoku region|Chugoku]] instead of [[Chūgoku]].
• Description
  • "The vomeropalatine teeth (a group of teeth in the upper back of the mouth) are arranged in two series." → Turn brackets into commas and link "vomeropalatine teeth" to Palatine bone.
• Distribution and habitat
  • Change "Ryuku Islands" to "Ryukyu Islands" and remove the link. It's linked in the ethymology section already.
  • "Jima" is the Japanese term for "island". So in this case, you either say "on the island of Hachijō" or simply "on Hachijō-jima". Using both terms in the same sentence is redundant.
  • De-link "United States", "states", and "Florida", which are all commonly known places.
  • Use the piped links [[Tōhoku region|Tohoku]], [[Chūbu region|Chubu]], and [[Kansai region|Kansai]] (instead of "Kinki").
  • De-link "Chugoku", which is already linked in a previous section.
  • Change "30 m (98 ft) to 2,020 m (6,630 ft)" to "30 to 2,020 m (98 to 6,630 ft)" to match the formatting in the previous section. It is not wrong per se, but it should be consistent across the article.
• Reproduction and life cycle
  • De-link "ponds", "streams", and "Japanese", which are common terms.
  • Highlight 'sodefrin' and 'imorin', either in single quotation marks or italic font. I'm not sure which one the convention for biological terms is.
  • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|sodefuri}}, {{lit|soliciting}})<ref>...</ref>, which renders as "(from the Japanese term sodefuri, lit. 'soliciting')^[21]".
  • Use (from the Japanese term {{transl|ja|imo}}, {{lit|beloved woman}}, and ''rin'' from ''sodefrin''), which renders as "(from the Japanese term imo, lit. 'beloved woman', and rin from sodefrin)".
  • Remove hyphens from "one-by-one".
  • "The young hatch from their eggs after about 3 weeks, as swimming" → replace "3" by "three, see comment above. I also think that the comma is superflous here.
• Diet
  • Link "tadpoles" at their first mentioning in the section. De-link "Tokyo", which is a commonly known place.
  • Remove hyphens from "year-to-year".
  • Try to remove the nestled brackets in this section. Brackets should be used as sparely in the main prose as possible.

  I trimmed the brackets down, including all of the nestled ones, although I think a few are needed here to stop it from becoming a jumbled mess.

• Predators
  • Remove the links from "bird" and "snake" here, and link from "avian" to Bird instead, which is less commonly known among casual readers.
  • "[...], newts from Fukue Island tend to perform tail-wagging displays (which bring a predator's attention to their replaceable tail rather than their more valuable head), [...]" → Turn brackets into commas here. See comment above.
• Toxin
  • "Experiments have found the toxin is almost entirely derived from the newt's diet." → Change marked text to "shown, the". Scientists can find something by conducting experiments, but not the experiments as such. Anthropomorphisms should be avoided in scientific or encyclopedic articles.

  I did this but left out the comma, as it doesn't appear necessary.

• Conservation
  • The first paragraph is currently a plain series of short main clauses. It may improve the reading flow of this paragaph if one or two of these main clauses were merged and turned into sub-clauses.

  Since the start of this review, I've been instructed to break up the article as little as possible, and these were originally separate subsections. I'm afraid I've run into conflicting recommendations.

  • If possible, try to rephrase the sentence to avoid the side-by-side links in "single-celled eukaryote".
  • Punctuation: "A variety, believed to be found exclusively on the Atsumi Peninsula, was thought to have become extinct in the 1960s. However, [...]"
• Research
  • Maybe link "gastrointestinal contractions" to Gastrointestinal physiology#Motility. As a non-biologist, I have a rough image what this is, but it's probably better to have a proper explanation link for this.
  • "(The discovery of the latter was the first time pancreatic motilin had been observed. The organ also produces insulin.)" → If this information is relevant enough for the main prose, then remove the brackets here. If not, move this sentence to the footnotes. See comment above.
  • "The existence of pancreatic motilin also indicated an additional, unknown, function." → That last comma should be skipped here.
• In captivity
  • "C. pyrrhogaster can be kept in captivity." → I recommend to use "Cynops" instead of "C." here. Sentences, especially new sections, should not start with an abbreviation.

That's it at second read. When the issues are fixed, I am happy to give an FAC support for this article. Well done. Henni147 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Henni147, these are great comments. I worked in almost all of them as you suggested, although I commented on a few that I was unsure of. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you very much for your quick reply, the changes look great at first look. If others suggested to break up the article into smaller sentences, then it's okay. I also agree with your other comments, and I'm happy to give my support now. Great job. Henni147 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I will make copy edits as I go. If you are unhappy with any, could you discuss them here? Thanks.

• "They are 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." Perhaps 'Adults are ...'?

Done.

Could I bring your attention to "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages" followed by the reasons why at the top of the FAC main page. Just indent your response and the reviewer will pick it up. Thanks. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me. I fixed it. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• "They readily consumed TTX-laced bloodworms when offered, not showing any symptoms after ingesting the poison". is it known if they were subsequently found to contain tetrodotoxin?

I'm a little confused. Could you rephrase?

It seems that it has been established that newts who did not consume TTX contained little or none of it. You report that this experiment establishes that they will consume TTX and not show ill effects. Does the TTX then stay in their system? The point being that this would be a strong indicator that the hypothesis that TTX in the newts all comes from diet is correct.

I added not only that, but further details on the results of the experiment that should bring everything together,

• "especially the major ones". Er, what does "especially" actually mean in this context?

As opposed to Japan's smaller islands, some of which they are not present on. Could you suggest a reword?

'including all of the major ones'.

That doesn't completely work, as they are absent from Hokkaido (which may or may not be part of Mainland Japan depending on how it's defined), so I removed it entirely in favor of specific islands (Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu). I also tweaked a similar statement in the body.

• "and potentially the eggs of their own species." Why "potentially"? This is not used in the main article.

I didn't want to give it undue weight by implying that it was a particularly major food source (as it might appear that way due to how the lead is worded). However, I suppose there's no real alternative to your suggestion for consistency's sake, so I did it.

• "before splitting into four distinct varieties throughout its range". Do you mean that? Or does each variety occupy a different range?

I mean that the range of the species can be divided into the ranges of four groups that all belong to that species. I don't particularly see a need to change this one, as the MOS usually allows mildly vague wording in the lead, which can then be fully explained in the body.

There is a difference between vague and misleading. How would you feel about 'before splitting into four distinct varieties each with a mostly separate range' or similar?

That's a very good suggestion. I used that.

• "although officially, all four varieties compose a single species." Perhaps 'Although all four are considered to compose a single species"?

The study was not entirely clear, but it suggested that the clades may be different species, even though they are taxonomically recognized as being a single one. I reworded it to be less ambiguous while still keeping the original message.

• "Currently, their population on a decline". Missing word(s)

Suggestion?

'Currently, their population is on a decline' perhaps. A verb is always useful ;-) .

Ohhhh, I did not notice the word you were talking about at first. Thanks, I fixed it.

• "may in fact belong to a different genus." Do we need "in fact"? I mean, might a reader otherwise suppose it wasn't a fact?

Removed

• "recognizes sixteen total synonyms for Cynops pyrrhogaster." Delete "total".

Done

• Could "clade" be linked at first mention.

Done

• "As time progressed". Consider → 'Later'.

I don't want to suggest they all split at once, which the word "later" seems to do. Any possible alternatives?

Ah. Point taken. Let me think on. If I don't get back to you, leave it as it is.

• "The northern diverged first, at around 9.68 million years ago, then the central (around 8.23 MYA), then finally the southern and western (around 4.05 MYA)". Why are the last two dates in brackets and the first not?

Removed from all.

• "to form a hybrid zone". Perhaps a very brief explanation of what this is? (Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")

Done

• "to be diluted by increasing hybridization." Link hybridization.

Done

• "and requires immediate protection". Non-NPOV value judgement. Consider rephrasing.

Done

• Section headers: consider deleting "and hybridization" and "Atsumi-Chita variant".

I was hesitant, but it actually looks quite nice. Done.

• Link ventral.

Done.

• "Smaller juveniles have ..." All of them, or just those from the smaller islands.

The linked source happens to be about a small island population, but its observations appear to apply to all populations. I moved several things around for better clarity.

• Why is "ventral region" defined inline at the second mention, rather than the first.

Moved.

• "vomeropalatine". Needs defining or explaining.

It's a rather odd term that I can't find a good definition for, but it should be better now.

• "A smooth ridge runs from their nape to their tail. It is 8 to 15 cm (3.1 to 5.9 in) long." In the lead you state that this is the total body length, not the length of the ridge. Is the range given for the napes of females or all specimens? If it is for adults, this needs stating.

I think there was some confusion here, but I've fixed it in the article.

• "Its range has a small amount of overlap". Does "Its" refer to the northern or the central clade?

Fixed.

• "forests, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, lakes, marshes, and cultivated environments." The Wikilinks seem a little random. Are you assuming that a reader will not understand what a marsh is, but will be familiar with a grassland?

Would you prefer I eliminate the current ones or add more?

I am a fan of WP:OVERLINK. And suspect that most readers can work out what "marshes" etc are.

Done.

• Gray, 1850; add the oclc. (3183646) And if this is a book, the title should be in title case.

Done.

• Boie, 1827; ditto. (727216017)

Done.

• References: if works are in foreign languages, these should be specified.

Tschudi appeared to be the only instance of an unspecified foreign language work, so I corrected that.

• Tschudi: oclc. (964903266)

Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, excellent suggestions. I have implemented all except a few I would like your recommendation on. I will get to your newer set soon. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• "fertilized one-by-one via the spermatophores they carry." Suggest "via" → 'from'.

Done.

• "in a full breeding season." Suggest deleting "full".

Done.

• "or they will drown". Suggest deleting "will".

Done.

• "In captive settings, they are known to readily eat mosquito larvae, brine shrimp, earthworms, and each other." Why is this under "life cycle" and not "Diet"?

Moved.

• "changes in the small animals around the ponds that they dwell in." Around the ponds, or in them?

The source actually says "in and around", I just noticed. Fixed it.

• "with one example of a potential serpentine predator being Gloydius blomhoffii." I don't see what this random-looking piece of information adds.

Removed.

• Link both adaptation and adapted.

Done.

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear :) I think I've gotten everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Mochida, 2009: all caps titles are not retained when used on Wikipedia.

Done.

• A stunning debut at FAC. More than happy to support. The first of many nominations I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and encouragement. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

Looking forward to reading this. I will make some minor copyedits along the way, please feel free to contest them. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• this source, which you cite, has if I'm not mistaken a more complete phylogeny of the near relatives. Among other things, it shows the non-monophyly of the genus. I suggest using it instead, unless you have a strong reason for using the 2001 study?
• Independent of the above, I think the caption should include the source.
• The same source mentions the extreme genetic divergence within the taxon; they stop short of calling them separate species, but this may be worth discussing anyway.

Added a brief mention.

• The same source also mentions that the islands were likely not isolated from the mainland during the probable spread; suggest including this.

Mentioned it.

• Suggest moving the fragment about threat status from taxonomy to conservation.

Done.

• It occurs to me that the infobox image is a lot less clear than some of the others; suggest swapping and/or cropping + scaling up.

An attempt was made, and it looks marginally better, but that's about as good as I can get it.

• "was thought to be extinct, however it was later revealed" some vagueness here; who thought it extinct, when was it determined to be the same as a different group, and how?

The source doesn't mention exactly who first thought it was extinct, but I added everything else.

• It is common to report SVL in reptiles, in addition to or in place of full body length, is it not? It would be nice to have if available.

I found some interesting information on that, which I included.

• "It has the northernmost range of any Cynops species" This is probably okay, but given the non-monophyly of the genus, begs the question if this is still true for the clade including all members.

According to the source, the other species are all found in either southern China or the Ryukyu Islands, so it would be true for all members. I added this.

• Section on reproduction has some information on size that may be better placed in the description.

It's a passing mention that is now included in the description anyway thanks to my other changes. Since the information around it is about maturation, which is relevant to life cycle, I think it's best to keep it.

• Fascinating information on antipredator behavior. If showing the belly is not viable on the mainland, what do they do instead?

Unfortunately, the source doesn't really say. The best I can find is this sentence: " This fatal mistake was often observed in laboratory trials; newts that reacted to a mammalian predator with the immobile display lost the opportunity to escape and were killed". This would suggest that escaping is the usual alternative, but it doesn't mention them actually doing so.

• "preventing predation by both birds and mammals" that isn't accurate, is it. Toxins don't prevent predation, they make predation harmful, discouraging it over longer timescales.

Reworded.

• The "research" section strikes me as somewhat haphazard at the moment. I suggest 1) opening with the paragraph about them as model organisms, and 2) including in each paragraph the significance of that particular research (for instance, why are they a model organism? to study regeneration, presumably, but you never know).

Implemented, although you should probably take a look to make sure it's as you envisioned.

• I suggest, though this isn't needed, that "in captivity" and "research" be combined; elements of the former topic are already included in the latter, and they are both short. You could call it "interaction with humans" or similar, and there is ample precedent for such sections in FAs.

That is a very good idea. I did so.

That's it for me for this round. This is an admirable effort, and I expect to support eventually. I do wonder if the source material has been mined completely; see comments above, this source, and these, which I just found. Many of the scholarly articles are admittedly dense, and if they're only using the newt as a model organism their utility here is likely to be limited; but I suggest examining the heavyweight studies once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Replied to all comments. I will look into adding extra sources if you can think of any important information that's missing. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, but I've requested a cladogram be made for the first point, which I'm waiting on currently. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Source spotcheck by LittleJerry

I looked through a few sources and they support the text. But I made a few changes in regards to paraphasing. Remember to as use little of the same words as the sources as you can, but I'll leave it for others to comment on. LittleJerry (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi LittleJerry and thanks for that. Is that a pass or not on the spot check? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Checked again. Looks okay. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Andrew D.

• "The species was first described by German zoologist Heinrich Boie in 1826 as Molga pyrrhogaster,[note 1] based on specimens brought from Japan to Europe." This seems too Eurocentric as I suppose that the Japanese had previously described and recognised the species in their scholarship. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, today's taxonomic system was developed by the Europeans, not the Japanese, so the first valid description would be Boie's. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps say scientifically described. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably make it easier to understand for readers unfamiliar with taxonomy. I have changed the wording. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• For the five book citations, you give the publisher location for Gray and Jobling, but not for Tschudi, Boie, or Stejneger. The requirement at FAC is consistent formatting -- it doesn't matter if you include them or not, but you should be consistent about it.

  Removed from all, as I don't think it's necesary.

• No publisher given for Tschudi.

  Added.

• No page number given for Jobling.

  Added.

• For 光, 中川; 保, 草野 (2007), can we get a trans-title parameter, and ideally transliterated names? I don't think I've seen sources cited to non-transliterated names before; I don't think there's a rule against it, but if you can transliterate them it would be kinder to readers who don't know Japanese.

  Names have been transliterated.

• The archive link for FNs 2, 4 & 6 don't work for me -- they bring up an archived version of the Biodiversity interface, but the pages are all blank. I don't think you need these anyway -- the books are the underlying source, and the biodiversity links are already a form of archive for them.

  Removed.

• FNs 18 and 20 appear to be duplicates.

  Fixed.

• FN 25 is paywalled, so I would suggest adding the subscription required parameter. The archive link only gives the login screen, which is non-functional in the archive, so I would remove the archive link.

  Both are done.

• Not strictly a FAC issue, but can you check if clicking on FN 6 in the etymology section takes you to the footnote? That one isn't working for me and I've no idea why; the others all work.

  It appears I had opened the footnote with "ref name" without entering a ref name. It's fixed now.

Spotchecks:

• "It was moved to the genus Cynops in 1838 by Swiss naturalist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, as Cynops subcristatus." Cited to Tschudi, p. 94. Verified, but I have a question. I'm not expert on taxonomy, but I would have expected to see a citation to a modern source crediting Tschudi. Pinging FunkMonk, who writes a lot of biology articles; FunkMonk is this the way one would expect this sort of thing to be cited?

  If a modern source saying the same can be found, I'd include both for good measure, especially if the taxonomic revision was controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Modern source added.

• "The ranges of the central and western varieties meet in Chugoku in western Japan to form a hybrid zone (an area where the two clades interbreed to produce hybrids). The central type has begun to move west, which has caused the hybrid zone to shift. It is expected to eventually cause the genome of the western form to be diluted by increasing hybridization." Verified.
• "There is also an introduced population on Hachijō-jima, believed to be descended from individuals from Shikoku. Their introduction is thought to have occurred in the 1970s, although exactly how it happened is unknown." Cited to Tominaga et al., pp. 64-68. I don't have access to this; can you quote the text that supports this?

  "Based on these results, we conclude that the population of C. pyrrhogaster introduced into Hachijojima Island is derived from individuals of Shikoku populations." and "However, no abnormalities have ever been reported from the now very abundant population of C. pyrrhogaster on Hachijojima Island, thought to have arrived there in the 1970s by means still unknown." Tip: everything cited here should be accessible through the Wikipedia Library.

• "In captive settings, tadpoles are known to readily eat mosquito larvae, brine shrimp, earthworms, and each other." Cited to Chiba et al. I can find support for all of this except "each other"; can you point me at the text that supports that?

  That's strange, as I could've sworn it was mentioned there. I removed that part for now, although I'll have to see if it's stated in a different source.

• "When this process occurs, the regenerated tissue tends to mirror intact tissue in form." Cited to Tsutsumi et al. Verified.
• "It is also able to regrow missing lenses, taking 30 days to do so as a larva and 80 days as an adult." Cited to Inoue et al. Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I have responded to everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pass. Changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Is there a reason you have zero synonyms in the infobox (also note your See text wikilink there doesn't go anywhere since you changed your heading)? I get a full list might be unwieldly but it might be worth at least having the basionym there? In general I'm not sure why you're citing ITIS instead of their source the AMNH's Amphibian Species of the World which provides much more context: [5]. Secondary sources instead of tertiary databases would be nice here too. It was moved to the genus Cynops in 1838 by Swiss naturalist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, as Cynops subcristatus.[6][3] this is kind of misleading -- Tschudi did not move anything, he might have been the first to describe the species in the genus Cynops, but he thought he was describing a new species; he didn't transfer a species. Do you have a secondary source saying it was in fact Gray who synonymized (that word should appear, I think) M. pyrrhogastra and C. subcristatus? There's no discussion at all about subspecies -- you talk about clades but it might also be worth mentioning what had previously been considered subspecies. Umimmak (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name: just making sure you saw this; you’ve responded to other comments but not this one. Umimmak (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, Umimmak, I was planning on getting there. I'll clean it up; I think the source you provided should help fix most of the issues you brought up. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Umimmak, I think I've done everything you wanted. It should be much clearer now. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are still some things which I think could be clearer:

  • make use of |synonyms_ref= in the infobox to have an inline citation for the list of synonyms.

  Done. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Consider also citing Boie 1826 -- it's in the public domain and available online: BHL page 27510759

  Done.

  • Also now I'm taking a closer look, Tschudi didn't describe C. subcristatus, rather he transferred Salamandra subcristata Temminck and Schlegel, 1838 to Cynops.

  Corrected.

  • I also really wouldn't say ITIS lists 16 synonyms... I mean, it does this 16 includes misspellings, alternative combinations, and synonyms, so I'm not sure how useful this number 16 is devoid of context?

  I figured it was worth at least mentioning the number as there is certainly no point in listing them all. What do you think is best?

  • I'll let someone else comment on source formatting in more specifics, but watch your formatting of references and also see: https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/How-to-cite

  Thanks for this. I corrected that reference and the others have already been reviewed.

  Umimmak (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Umimmak, hopefully this looks better. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• How is that cladogram coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  My request was archived. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I know the code looks intimidating at first, but I think you could do this yourself. A phylogeny is based on many copies of Template:Clade, which has very simple syntax. The documentation on that page is quite clear. I suggest drafting one in your sandbox, which I would be happy to look over. Also, please remember I wasn't asking you to reproduce the entire phylogeny from that study, just the most relevant branches; most everything else can be collapsed as needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What, if any, progress is being made on this? It seems to be the only thing holding up closure, but if one is not inserted soon then the nomination is liable to be archived; which would be a great shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, my apologies, I have updated it now. It should be much better. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde, wadaya think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but I think a little bit more work is needed. The update is good, but I don't think it's right to leave out the clade of four species between orientalis and ensicauda; it's showing the non-monophyly of the genus, which is important. Stick those in and I'd be happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, for some bizarre reason I can no longer find the source used for the cladogram on the WP Library. I'm not sure what to do now. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I still have access; I can attempt to fix it myself, but not today. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and An anonymous username, not my real name: Done, and assuming my change sticks, I now support. I assume it is not inappropriate of me to enter a declaration. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Thanks Vanamonde93 Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Eggs are laid separately". I assume you mean that each egg is laid in a different location, but this should be spelled out.

  This is how the source words it, so I would much prefer to leave it that way.

• Using the source's wording is against Wikipedia rules. You are supposed to give the sense in your own words. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• "They grow from larval to juvenile form in between five and six months". You should also say how long from juvenile to adult.

  None of the sources say. My guess would be that juvenile and adult stages are harder to clearly distinguish than larval and juvenile stages, where an obvious metamorphosis takes place.

• You use the terms variety, race and clade, but not the usual term sub-species. Variety is not linked and Race (biology) says that it is an informal term with no agreed definition. Clade as I understand it is a method of classification, whereas variety and race are unofficial taxonomic levels, so it is confusing to say that division into six races was replaced by division into four clades, and that the validity of two races is questioned on the basis of lack of behavioural differences, which is not a cladistic criterion. The terminology needs clarification.

  I can't say anything that the sources don't, as that would be original research. I agree that the terminology is sketchy, but I cannot refer to something that has never been described as such as a subspecies.

• It is probably going beyond the remit of this article but as the species diverged into sub-species almost 10 million years ago and it has extreme genetic differences I am puzzled why it is considered one species. There are many cases of different species which can interbreed, so that is presumably not decisivve.

  Yes, the implication seems to be that there may be multiple species, but no study has yet made that claim.

• "Newts at lower altitudes mature faster than those at higher ones, and male newts of these populations tend to live longer after reaching maturity." I assume that "these populations" refers to those at higher latitudes, but you need to spell this out.

  Fixed.

• "Japanese newts serve as a highly useful model organism". In the next paragraph you use the full species name, and it is better to be consistent.

  Thanks, I think this was a mistake.

• My points are minor, apart from the confusion over terminology. I think it would be better to avoid unofficial terms such as variety and race, although I realise that you are no doubt taking them from the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, yes, these are what the sources say, so there is little I can do about it. None of the sources use any term besides "race" to refer to the six invalid varieties, which is probably part of why they are invalid. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, I have corrected what I can. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dudley, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I still have some queries. They are minor and will not prevent me supporting, but I would like to get the nominator's response first. The first one is the reply on my first point above. The second one, which I have not previously followed up, is the use of the vague terms, race and variety. I take the nominator's point that they have to go by the sources, but a quick search of Google Scholar suggests that some researchers do refer to sub-species, and I think that further research on this might provide some clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, for your first point, close paraphrasing is allowed when there are only a limited number of ways to state the same idea, which would apply here. Saying "each egg is laid in a different location" could falsely imply a fairly large distance between each egg, which is not what the source says, and besides, it doesn't seem any more or less clear than what is currently written. To your second point, further research revealed that yes, one of the races was formerly described as a subspecies, which is now said in the article. That should be all. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. My queries dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.