Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nyctibatrachus major/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [1].

Nyctibatrachus major edit

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a bit short on FAC-ready bird articles, so we have this nice frog instead. It's not super well-studied, but there is a fair bit more literature it than most frogs, and I'm confident that this is the most comprehensive summary of that literature available. AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Illustration is missing alt text
    • Added.
  • No range map?
    • I'll try to get one, frogs in general don't seem to have editors making range maps for them the ways mammals and birds do.
  • File:Nyctibatrachus_major.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens edit

  • depositing eggs on – I suggest "which are placed on" to make it easier to read (I felt that the current formulation disrupted reading flow)
    • I reworded the sentence by moving some clauses around; see if it's better now.
  • fertiliser overuse – Is "overuse" covered by the sources? I think it is not a trivial point, because this would imply that normal fertiliser doses does not harm the frogs. (You could argue of course that fertilisers are almost always overused by modern agriculture, and I would agree, but then the "overuse" is misleading).
    • Krishnamurthy et al. 2006 says "indiscriminate application of nitrogenous fertilisers in agricultural fields, especially in the breeding season, will adversely affect tadpole development and survival and could cause a decline of anuran populations in the Western Ghats", the first part of which I think is equivalent to overuse. I will note that no source says "overuse" specifically though; the two studies mostly just talk about the very high levels of nitrogen-based fertilizers used in the Western Ghats and its possible negative effects.
  • from "Wynaad" and "Malabar". – Why are these put in quotes? I am sure you have a reason for that, but it is not apparent to the reader (at least not to me).
    • Archaic terms that people don't use anymore and are somewhat ambiguous; the first at least can reasonable be assumed to mean Wayanad, but the latter is jus nebulous and could more or less refer to the entire southwestern Indian coast.
      • But you linked them to two provinces, which implies they are unambiguous. If there are doubts, I would not link them, and maybe write "from what he referred to as "Wynaad" and "Malabar"." to make clear why these are put in quotes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty – "as" missing
    • Fixed.
  • Some studies have found a slightly different relationship, with major being sister to gavi, and acanthodermis being sister to that clade.[9] – really "some studies"? You only cite one.
    • Reworded.
  • Within the genus, it is sister (most closely related) to a clade – I think this (and what follows) needs author attribution. Or is it established consensus?
    • Attributed.
  • The following cladogram shows relationships within this clade based on a phylogeny by a 2017 study: – Reflecting which of the two phylogenys that were discussed in the previous text?
    • Clarified.
  • The species has had its DNA barcoded.[10] – Very short one-sentence paragraph. Can we have a bit more here? What are the implications of this barcoding, what were the results?
    • No implications I can find; the original report basically just says "this can now be used to identify the frog more accurately", which seems a bit obvious to me. I also can't find
  • The sides of the stomach are light grey, – but the stomach is an internal organ. You appear to describe skin color?
    • In the sense of "belly"; replaced with that word.
  • most of their time in aquatic environments, – maybe "most of their time in the water" but have it more plain, avoiding unneccessary complexity?
    • Aquatic environments include for eg rocky areas in a stream, which is not the same as in water. I don't think aquatic is a particularly complicated word.
  • inhabit the same microhabitat as it. – "share the same microhabitat."?
    • Reworded.
  • N. major mainly feeds on insect larvae and other frogs – adult frogs, or frog larvae?
    • The report says "subadults", so probably does eat adults; I think this is clear from the way the sentence is currently phrased.
  • I agree that we urgently need a range map. It is very important.
    • Added.
  • That is all from me; nice little article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jens Lallensack, replied to all your comments inline. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, only one reply above, on a point on which I am not yet convinced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz edit

  • "species of frog in the robust frog family..." maybe "species of robust frog in the family..."
    • I think the current phrasing emphasizes the fact that the family itself is called "robust frogs" better.
  • "31.5–52 mm (1.24–2.05 in)" I got called on this too: the inches have more sig figs than the millimeters. Should be "31.5-55 mm (1.2-2.1 in)"
    • It's actually 52.0, changed in the article to reflect that it does have 3 sig figs.
  • "It also has a variety of grey or brown markings" I think this could be elaborated upon slightly here in the lede. Are these all over the body? What shape are the markings?
    • They're mostly just random markings; it is a frog, after all, it doesn't have a distinct pattern or anything.
  • "Females lay multiple smaller clutches" smaller compared to what?
    • Changed to "small".
  • "classified as being vulnerable..." add "to extinction" perhaps? That may be redundant, though
    • I think it's a bit redundant.
  • "Threats to the species include habitat loss" repeats the previous sentence. Perhaps could be "Other threats include increased human presence..."
    • Habitat degradation is different from habitat loss; the first implies that while the habitat is still there, it is getting worse in quality, while the second means the habitat has completely disappeared. The fact that both terms link to the same article is somewhat unfortunate in my view.
  • "... synonymised with N. major by the herpetologist R. S. Pillai in 1978..." is there a reason given for the synonymization, or for why S.K. Dutta disagreed with it?
    • Added Pillai's reasoning; I can't find a copy of Dutta's book anywhere, but I'll see if I can find it anywhere and try to add something.
  • "The species has had its DNA barcoded" personal preference but maybe "The species had its DNA barcoded in _____"
    • Done.
  • "The species can be distinguished..." I think the semicolons here should just be commas; they are not separating complete clauses, only items in a list
    • I used the semicolons since each of the items in the list is really long and I think the semicolons makes it easier to read.
  • "ovoid" to "oval-shaped" or some other more common verbiage
    • Apparently "ovular" can't be used to refer to shapes, so went with "roughly egg-shaped".
  • Perhaps split the habitat and distribution section into two paragraphs, with one for habitat and the other for distribution
    • Having them together is standard usage; the section also isn't particularly long or anything, so I'd prefer to have it together.
  • "Insects known to be consumed" is a highly passive construction
    • Reworded.
  • "...may be due to the fact that these two species inhabit the same microhabitat as it" I'm not sure what, but something seems off to me with this clause
    • Reworded per Jens' suggestion.
  • Commas for 4-digit numbers are inconsistent. In the conversions they are there, but when they are typed out they are missing
  • 8 Added commas.
  • "sub-lethal concentrations" what concentrations would those be? I guess I'm wondering where the threshold between the frogs being fine and having "adverse effects" is
    • Concentrations up to 5000 μg were used in the study, but this isn't like a bright line, lower concentrations are also fatal, just less so. I have mentioned the LC50, which is a much more measurable and relevant metric.

That's all I have for now, thank you for the article! Fritzmann (message me) 13:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fritzmann2002, replied to all your comments inline. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, but would still appreciate the addition of Dutta's reasoning if you are able to find it. Thanks for a great article! Fritzmann (message me) 16:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the range map; Cephas based it off the IUCN assessment, which is a bit dated; consequently, it includes portions in Maharashtra that were probably reported in error. I've clarified this in the caption, but I'm not comfortable removing them from the range map since there's no recent sources for an accurate map, and SYNTH-ing together recent reports with the old IUCN map seems like OR to me. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger edit

  • In 2011, the herpetologist S. D. Biju and colleagues re-examined the specimens from which the species was described, and concluded that several of these actually represented species distinct from N. major; they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" as the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty. I recommend moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph so that it is in chronological order.
    • Done.
  • Was any etymology/reasoning given for the choice of specific epithet?
    • Probably just cause it's big, but no reason stated as such by Boulenger.
  • The lores and area around the tympanum... Please add (area between the eyes and nostrils) after "lores" as a quick explanation.
    • Done.
  • No tadpole pictures?
    • None that I could find.

And that's all for now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it again and saw no further issues. Support Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta edit

Lead

  • what does it mean when it says that the frog family is "robust"?
    • It's the common name that ASW uses.
      • Ok, but what does it mean? Family is speciose? Members are strong and healthy? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get it now, but using it adjectivally is confusing, like a value judgment is being made. How about ".. a species of frog in the family Nyctibatrachidae, commonly known as "robust frogs"? Esculenta (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really know; like most names of this type, it's a bit contrived and arbitrary.
Hi AryKun, in your suggestion above you have quote marks - "robust frogs". These don't seem to have made it into the current version of the article. Is there any reason? Also, if you are going to state this in the lead, it needs to be as a summary or copy of something in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common name, I don't think it needs quotation marks. I haven't seen any other articles use them. It's also mentioned in the body as "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae". AryKun (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation marks, thats fine by me; I just wondered why what you had proposed immediately above had not made its way to the article.
To my mind "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae" cannot reasonably be summarised as "a species of frog in the family Nyctibatrachidae, commonly known as robust frogs". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on the second point (both convey the same information, the common and scientific names of the family), but I've changed the wording in the body to match that in the lead. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, courtesy ping AryKun (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grayish in color" and then next sentence "dark greyish-brown upperside"; "color" and "colour" both used … please audit article throughout and commit to an English variety
    • Changed to Indian English.
  • "When preserved in ethanol, it is mostly greyish-brown to grey, with whitish sides." why is this factoid in the lead? Is the alcohol-pickling colour predicted to be useful or interesting to the average reader?
    • Preserved specimens are quite a common thing to be described in scientific descriptions and are always like the second thing described in amphibian papers.
      • Still don't see how this is relevant for the average reader, but ok. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sexes can be told apart by the presence of the femoral glands" when I hover over the link for femoral glands, it redirects to femoral pore, and that article says that this organ is present in certain certain lizards and amphisbaenians, but does not mention frogs
    • Yes, that's a problem with the redirect and something I don't want to fix because it's work.
      • Another source I checked says that frogs don't have femoral pores, but have femoral glands, mucous glands and granular glands. I think this needs further investigation. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Femoral gland as a concept seems to be well established (one of the studies cited is literally about that), but I guess the redirect should be deleted until someone writes a separate article since the reptile and amphibian femoral pore/glands seem to be different things.
          • Please delete the redirect and I'll write up a short article on femoral glands in amphibia. Esculenta (talk)
  • "at elevations of 0–900 m" why not "up to 900 m"?
    • Changed.
  • link clutch
    • Done.

Taxonomy and systematics

  • taxonomy is a subset of systematics, so the heading seems redundant
    • Standard heading, doesn't really seem like it's worth changing.
      • Really? It's standard to have a redundant heading? I just checked every frog/amphibian FA and the only one that has this "standard" heading is Mini scule, written by you. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed. I have apparently been using the non-standard heading for every article I've ever written; can't remember where I picked it up, but of all the luck.
  • Boulenger described some places as "Wynaad" and "Malabar"; what are these places called now (or link to their current names)?
    • See discussion above; Wynaad can reasonably be interpreted to mean Wayanad (although the administrative borders have changed a lot) and Malabar could mean pretty much the entire southeast Indian coast.
  • I think for context it would be a good idea if you mentioned that Boulenger also circumscribed the Nyctibatrachus in the same publication he described this species. Was it the only species in the genus at the time? Also, I don't see in the protologue where it says this species was designated as the type, did Boulenger not assign one?
    • Added. Subsequent designation, see the ASW page.
  • link pupil, common ancestor
    • Done.
  • R. S. Pillai, S. K. Dutta, S. D. Biju – why not give their first names, as with other researchers mentioned?
    • No real reason, I don't really see a reason to make it consistent either.
      • You see no reason to make the article formatting consistent? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think we harp on about consistency over every single thing way too much; you can change it if you want, I'm not really tied to it.
          • This is because WP:WIAFA dictates that FAs follow the MoS, and a read of the MoS itself reveals a constant harping on the need for within-article consistency over mostly every little thing. Esculenta (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I hate the MOS, but changed.
  • "The species had its DNA barcoded in 2010." please tell the reader why this is important
  • I just saw your reply to Jens above. The point of barcoding might be obvious to you without further explanation, but we can't assume our readers will have the same understanding. From reading the paper, I would summarize as follows:
"This technique, which allows conservationists to accurately identify even small tissue samples of the species, provides a precise method for species identification, crucial for conservation efforts. Such identification is essential in the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot where this vulnerable and endemic amphibian resides. The barcoding not only aids in resolving taxonomic uncertainties but also supports the management and preservation of genetic diversity within the species' populations. Additionally, the development of species-specific microsatellite markers offers tools for assessing genetic variation and population dynamics, further informing conservation strategies for this species." or something like that
That's a bit long; shortened and added to the article. AryKun (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology

  • Shouldn't start paragraphs or sentences with an abbreviation (several instances)
    • Seems fine to me; I don't like the idea of redundantly writing Nyctibatrachus major again and again when the genus is unambiguous.
      • Well, that goes against pretty much every style guide I've seen, including ones for scientific writing. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to Nyctibatrachus major.
  • the protologue mentions that the species has "vomerine teeth in two straight series, oblique in the young, much behind the level of the choanae". why leave this info out?
    • Not important for either the general reader or the specialist; the general reader won't be able to use this, and all the recent papers on Nyctibatrachus frogs use the combination of characters in "The species can...the nostrils" to key the species. I don't like using very old descriptions as determiners for what information to include for this reason; unlike modern descriptions which focus on effectively being able to key the species, old descriptions tend to have a hodgepodge of whatever characters that particular author observed.
      • Sucks to be the reader who wants to know if this frog has teeth. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • We now know that the frog has teeth.
      • Personally, I like to add tidbits mentioned by earlier authors, as they tend to give interesting details left out by later authors who prefer to formulate compact species diagnosis to key out species. BTW, I did see some later descriptions of the frog that did include details of the teeth, and other things that have been left out of this article's short description, so I don't agree with your statement "Not important for either the general reader or the specialist". Esculenta (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • more info in the protologue but not in the article: males have two vocal sacs (I checked, and male frogs usually have either 1 or 2, so why not include this?)
    • Added.
  • the upper eyelids are covered with tubercles
    • See above.
  • the throat has longitudinal folds
    • See above.
  • article says it's large for its genus; for context, what's the size of the next-largest congener?
    • Idk which species is the next largest or anything, but the Bombay night frog grows to a comparable size. None of the sources have a list of the frogs by size or anything, so just mentioning that its large and the exact length next to it seems fine to me.
      • Seems like an oversight to me that the relatively large size of the frog is proclaimed in the third sentence of the lead, but the article doesn't give any other context later in the article. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have any sources I can use for this; it's not like any sources have the median size of a Nyctibatrachus frog or anything.
          • Have you not read Biju et al. 2011 (your very first source)? Here's the information: the largest exemplars of the "large" size class in the genus Nyctibatrachus (defined as 41–77 mm) were
Nyctibatrachus karnatakaensis – SVL 63.8 mm
Nyctibatrachus acanthodermis – SVL 62.2 mm
Nyctibatrachus grandis – SVL 62.2 mm
Nyctibatrachus gavi – SVL 49.5 mm
  • In the section on "Parental care behaviour", it helpfully says that N. grandis is "up to SVL 77 mm, male", so now we know where the upper boundary of the largest size class comes from. So this should be enough information to be able to mention the next-largest congeners, and a useful place to insert the maximal recorded SVL length (not currently in the article). Esculenta (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adde context about size of the large group in the genus.
  • Actually, in light of information, how is Nyctibatrachus major the largest in the genus? Esculenta (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't, the article just says it's large for its genus.
  • link metamorphosis, modulation, kHz
    • Linked.
  • do we know how long the tadpoles remain as tadpoles?
    • No sources seem to mention this, which is odd considering that they've experimented on the tadpoles.
      • From the source Krishnamurthy et al. 2006: "In the control tadpoles, the Gosner stage increased steadily over the period of the experiment, and the tadpoles had metamorphosed into froglets by 98 days". Esculenta (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice catch, added. Clearly had not read the source thoroughly enough.
  • I don't think the link to Spectral band (from "frequency band") is helpful. How about "frequency range" or "range of frequencies"
    • I think "band" is a common enough word when used for frequencies; in India at least, I've seen it used often when talking about spectrum allocation.
  • subsection "vocalizations" isn't a part of "Morphology", so maybe the section should be titled "Description" instead?
    • Changed.

Habitat and distribution

  • The term "evergreen deciduous forest" might be a bit confusing, as "evergreen" and "deciduous" usually refer to two different types of forests
    • "deciduous forest" is linked, so I think evergreen can reasonably be read as modifying that whole term (deciduous forests that are evergreen).
  • link microhabitat earlier (I see it linked later), canopy
    • Done.

Ecology

  • "When disturbed or threatened, it rushes…" previous sentences talks about the frog in plural form, so "they" would be better here
    • Done.
  • link testes, pigmented
    • These are really common terms and don't really need a link.
      • So why link species and humidity? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we tend to link species, removed the link for humidity.
  • it says the eggs are pigmented, but does not say what colour they are
    • Source doesn't say.

Conservation

  • you can't convert land to agriculture. You can, however, convert land to use for agricultural purposes.
    • A testament to my writing skills this; fixed.
  • "to farms which experience high levels" which->that
    • Done.
  • link nitrate
    • Done.
  • might be more layman-friendly to use the more explanatory term "median lethal dose" rather than LC50 (or use both with the latter term given parentetically)
    • There is the gloss "concentration at which 50% of exposed tadpoles die", so I don't really see a reason to change.
  • are the redlinked journal titles (some duplicated links too) in the reference list helpful to the reader, or annoying? (this reader thinks the latter) If the former, why isn't "Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of India" also linked?
    • I think they might be notable enough for one of our journal micro stubs; linked BZSI for consistency.
  • "When disturbed or threatened, they rush into the mud of the streambed…" source Pillai 1978 directly contradicts this statement: "Seldom did they try to bury themselves in mud and none tried to leave the water and take shelter in the matty undergrowth that grew next to the water's edge." Esculenta (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm citing Daniels 2005: "It dives in on disturbance kicking and scrambling through the mud and debris at the bottom and remains submerged for a while before surfacing. If it senses danger it immediately resorts to the same behaviour". I'd be inclined to give more weight to Daniels than Pillai, since his books is still the most comprehensive work on Indian amphibians, but I'll add a small bit about Pillai's findings if you want.
      • I don't think it's about giving more weight per se, but both types of behaviours have been observed in nature, so they should both be mentioned. Esculenta (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mentioned.
  • "preferring streams with low air and water temperatures" Krishnaturhty et al. 1992 state that the frog is found in water between 18.0 and 24.5°C, which doesn't seem particularly low (particularly where I'm from). How about just giving this temperature range and let the reader decide if that's low or not?
    • No, the sources do say it's low; it's also a relative thing, 18.0 and 24.5°C is definitely quite cool for the location.
      • the problem is, when a reader like me sees "low water temperatures", I think it's probably less than about 15°C. This potential assumption confusion could be easily resolved in the article by giving the actual temperatures. Esculenta (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added temperature range, kept "low" since that's how the sources describe it.
  • why not mention that the femoral glands seem to vary in size/structure depending on the season, and what implication this has (Krishnamurhty et al. 1992)
    • Added.
  • IUCN source mentions that the estimated extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2; seems like a useful addition to Habitat and distribution, no?
    • No, it's just the cut-off for being classified as Vulnerable. They don't actually make an estimate for extent of occurrence or actual area inhabited, so it seems a bit misleading to put that in when the actual range could be much different.
  • needs a fix: "... may be due to the fact that these all of these species"
    • Fixed.
  • I think the article should mention somewhere that the region the frog lives in is a biodiversity hotspot, particularly for amphibians Esculenta (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't really seem relevant to the species. We'd basically be putting "the WG are a biodiversity hotspot" in the article of every species that mostly occurs there then when that doesn't really have much to do with the species.
      • The status of a region as a biodiversity hotspot is not just a general fact but an important piece of information that can enlighten readers about the ecological significance of the species and the potential conservation challenges it faces. This context could be important for understanding why conserving Nyctibatrachus major, and other endemic species like it, is important, and I don't understand the reluctance to let the readers know this info. You could just mention the detail strategically in the habitat or conservation section, eg. "The species is endemic to the verdant slopes of the Western Ghats in southern India—a region renowned as an amphibian biodiversity hotspot—spanning across Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka." Esculenta (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is just a general fact, it isn't important to conservation for the species specifically or anything. It isn't a flagship species, so mentioning the hotspot thing is unnecessary and would seem shoehorned in. It'd be like mentioning that Madagascar is a hotspot with high levels of endemism on every article on a species endemic native to Madagascar.

Having read the taxonomic review by Biju et al. 2011 I think there's some more information that should be in this article:

  • the fact that "(George Sprague) Myers (1942) attempted to stabilise the nomenclatural status of the genus" by setting this species as type. Myers 1942 is not used in the article, but it is conveniently available here. This source should be included as important in the taxonomic history of this species.
    • Added.
  • "Examination of the type series revealed that it contains more than one species" this statement from Biju et al. clearly states what the taxonomic problem was and why a lectotype needed to be chosen avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty (i.e, "… nomenclatural application of the genus Nyctibatrachus to a single type species"); the wiki article is unfortunately not as clear.
    • Tried to make clearer.
  • I noticed there's no section on "Similar species", but the Biju et al. review of the genus have several instances throughout where they compare the morphology of this species with others in the genus (including in the species description itself). Other GA- and FA-level species articles have similar information, and I don't see why that information isn't included here (especially when it's laid out nicely in the main source). Esculenta (talk)
    • Biju compares the species to seven others in the genus on the characters already mentioned in "The species can...the nostrils". It would be repetitive to keep saying "N. major differs from species A in x, y, z, from species B in w, x, y, from species C in q, w, z" when we can just give all of the characteristics that together diagnose the species as a key. If someone is bothering to check the presence of grooves on the toe discs to tell it apart from one species, I'd think they'd check for all the other characteristics while they're at it to make sure it's major.
      • But the reader doesn't know from this brief diagnosis the identity of other species it differs from. How hard would it be write something more explanatory like this:

Nyctibatrachus major could potentially be mistaken for several related species within its genus, such as N. dattatreyaensis, N. humayuni, N. indraneili, N. jog, N. karnatakaensis, N. petraeus, and N. vrijeuni. However, several distinctive characteristics aid in its identification.

Nyctibatrachus major can be differentiated from N. petraeus by the morphology of its digits. In N. major, the third finger disc lacks a groove and is 1.8 times wider than the finger itself, while in N. petraeus, this disc is markedly wider at 3.3 times the finger's width and both the third finger and fourth toe discs have a dorso-terminal groove. Furthermore, males of N. major have a head that is broader than it is long, contrasting with N. petraeus males, whose heads are as wide as they are long. The proportions of the thigh and shank in N. major are equal, whereas in N. petraeus the thigh tends to be longer than the shank.

When compared to N. vrijeuni, N. major once again shows distinctions in the third finger and fourth toe discs; N. vrijeuni's fourth toe disc has a notched distal cover as opposed to the rounded cover found in N. major. The head dimensions in N. major are also wider than they are long for both sexes, which contrasts with N. vrijeuni, where the head width and length are approximately equal. The limbs of N. major are proportionately equal in length, differing from N. vrijeuni where the thigh is longer than the shank."

Named the species it could be confused with, but don't see how adding species by species comparisons would improve the article. That's two paragraphs on two species; for the 7 species Biju mentions, you'd have to add 7 paragraphs, completely destroying the balance of the article. The article is meant to be an encyclopedia-style summary, adding tons of excessive, redundant information more suited for the journal article would not be appropriate.
  • I found out (Biju et al. p.8) that in this genus, "Black or bluish-black liver is externally visible on the ventral side through skin in life", and that this darker colouration is visible in the ventral view image ... might be educational to highlight this. Esculenta (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
  • Esculenta, see further replies above. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Esculenta, see replies. AryKun (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Esculenta, I think I've addressed all of your comments except two. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the hotspot thing and the species-specific comparisons of morphology. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, that's fine. I wrote an article for femoral gland, so this article doesn't have to have a confusing redirect. Thanks for all the work you put into it, and dealing with my endless nitpicks/suggestions. I think I've put you through enough reviewer torture, hope you enjoyed it! I support this candidacy for promotion. Esculenta (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'm not knowledgeable about the field but I can see no red flags for source reliability.

  • Any reason why some of the journal sources have ISSNs and some do not?
  • Can we get a publisher location for Meenakshi et al (FN 13)?
    • Added.
  • I get a "Privacy error" when I click on the link in FN 9.
    • I'm not sure why, it's working fine for me. It's the ZSI's official government site too, so there shouldn't be any issues with privacy, either.
      It was a certificate error and after allowing the error it worked for me, so not your problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I see no formatting or link errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, see response above. AryKun (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 10 November 2023 (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/Nyctibatrachus_major/archive1&oldid=1185321957"