Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Frog/archive1

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:58, 24 March 2010 [1].

Frog

edit

Review commentary

edit
Toolbox
Notified: Samsara (hasn't been active since early 2009), LiquidGhoul (hasn't been active since late 2009), Joyous!, Amphibians and Reptiles

I am nominating this featured article for review because of a lack of in-line references (1c) and poorly formatted citations (2c). There have been fact tags present in the article since 2008. Images lack alt text (3) and the lead could stand to be expanded (2a). There are at least two dead links and multiple dabs (see toolbox for links). Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion at WT:FAR that led up to this nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Philcha
  • Section "Evolution" is out-to-date. It has a prescript about Gerobatrachus hottoni then describes Triadobatrachus, but as of 2008 Gerobatrachus hottoni was the main event - see Google Scholar. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evolution" is incomplete as it omits phylogeny. Google Scholar has plenty. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Taxonomy" should follow "Morphology and physiology" and "Natural history", so that "Taxonomy" can be explained in terms of the features rather than a list of taxa names. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Taxonomy" and "Evolution" should be combined or at least be adjacent, because phylogeny is (among other things) another classification approach. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Ecology" (incl "Distribution", "Environment(s)", "Interactions with other organism") and "Interactions with humans" should precede "Conservation status" as the previous sections often help to explain "Conservation status". --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The order Anura contains 4,810 species[2] in 33 families, of which the Leptodactylidae (1100 spp.), Hylidae (800 spp.) and Ranidae (750 spp.) are the richest in species. About 88% of amphibian species are frogs", it's unclear whether the citation applies to the whole passage or only to "The order Anura contains 4,810 species". --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The use of the common names "frog" and "toad" ... while its skin is slightly warty, it prefers a watery habitat" has no citations. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species of anurans hybridise readily ... giving rise to a hybrid zone" has no citations. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skull is frog-like, ... making it probable Triadobatrachus was not an efficient leaper" has no citations - but first see whether Triadobatrachus is as important, since Gerobatrachus hottoni has been studied. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest true frog is Vieraella herbsti, ... the shortening of the body and the loss of the tail" has no citations. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frog fossils have been found on all continents, including Antarctica":
    • has no citations. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • looks in the wrong place - I'll place it in a "distribution" sub-section of a "Ecology" section (other sub-sections might be "environments", "food", "predators and parasites", etc.) --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not any more on comments on citations - every claim in the article must checked for citations. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their legs are more suited to jumping than walking" is too broadbush, as "toads" generally are walking - although the frog / toad division now looks dubious, see "Taxonomy" --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Morphology and physiology" (the "lead" of this section) has no structure and many unconnected facts, and sometimes duplicates other (sub-)sections, i.e. in "Skin". --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Species counts at "Taxonomy" and "Morphology and physiology" are inconsistent. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the coverage and structure problems, IMO the article in its current form has little chance of passing GA. IMO the article needs a re-write from scratch. --Philcha (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some things...

Just bored and came by to see what's going on:

  • "Tyler's Tree Frog (Litoria tyleri) illustrates large toe pads and webbed feet." the frog itself doesn't illustrate anything...maybe say "Tyler's Tree Frog (Litoria tyleri) exemplifies the large toe pads and webbed feet common to frogs."
  • "There are tremendous differences between species in jumping capability, but within a species, jump distance increases with increasing size, but relative jumping distance (body-lengths jumped) decreases." Awk. wording
  • "Compared with the other two groups of amphibians..."-Don't you mean "classes"
  • "In some of these cases, the full leg grows anyway, and in other cases, it does not, although the frog may still live out its normal lifespan with only three legs. Other times..."-wording is a little diffuse
  • I assume the "citation needed" tags will be taken care of?
Overall, very good work (I mean, it's FA, it speaks for itself), just needs a few little edits.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media review

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are citations, lead, structure YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as nominator. One reference has been added since the review began 2+ weeks ago, and besides that nothing has been done to the article, leaving all of the above comments unresolved. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no changes either.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - Papa Lima Whiskey found cites for the two ref needed tags. Maybe this can be a save? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The FARC started 22 February 2010 and the article's history] shows that little happened 12 Mar 2010. "Evolution" seems no better than at the start, on both fossil record (needs update) and phylogeny (still none). None response on comments about structure. Paras w/o citations all the way down. --Philcha (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I officially claim the article should be delisted. I didn't say anything before because it was relatively early in the process. However, nothing at all has been done to address the above concerns...nothing. When I check the article revision history and see "general cleanup" as the last edit five days ago I feel it is not being maintained.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no recent progress, numerous citation needed tags, unsourced text, and no sustained effort to resolve issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for lack of effort in polishing the many, many issues. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (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_review/Frog/archive1&oldid=1088203885"