Jump to content

Talk:Ameerega munduruku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ameerega munduruku/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


My comments below:

  • 24.87–27.33 mm (0.979–1.076 in) for adult males and 20.42–28.59 mm (0.804–1.126 in) – Maybe in the lead, it would be appropriate to round these numbers, to make them a bit easier to read?
    • Done.
  • Ameerega munduruku is a species of poison dart frog in the family Dentrobatidae. – You link "family", but a link to Dentrobatidae would be more important?
    • Already linked as poison dart frog earlier in the sentence.
  • from snout to the groin. – I would say either "from the snout to the groin" or "from snout to groin"?
    • Fixed.
  • The upperside of the limbs are brown – uppersides
    • Fixed.
  • Two orange spots are present, one on the armpit and another hidden one on the lower leg and an orange stripe runs from the groin to the upperside of the thigh. – Sentence needs rephrasing.
    • Split up into two.
  • vocal slits – link or explain?
    • Linked somewhat tenuously to vocal sac, also glossed.
  • The hands and feet lack webbing, and there are no protrusions on the tarsus. – Does "tarsus" refer to the bones, as the linked article indicates, or is this frog jargon? If the latter, can it be replaced with a common-language word?
    • Seems to just refer to the bone.
  • and the presence of the palatine teeth – remove "the"
    • Done.
  • near water in open areas in forest – forests?
    • I think it's fine to use forest as a mass noun here.
  • Obvious question: Is it poisonous? This is not stated in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost certainly, but none of the sources say anything about it and the sources confirming toxicity in Ameerega frogs are all from before this species was described, so would be OR to say.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that male Ameerega munduruku frogs are known to carry tadpoles on their back? Source: Neves, Matheus Oliveira; da Silva, Leandro Alves; Akieda, Paulo Sérgio; Cabrera, Rodrigo; Koroiva, Ricardo; Santana, Diego José (2017). "A new species of poison frog, genus Ameerega (Anura: Dendrobatidae), from the southern Amazonian rain forest". Salamandra. 53 (4): "We found one male (not collected) carry- ing nine tadpoles on its dorsum during the wet season (No- vember 2016)."

Improved to Good Article status by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ameerega munduruku; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • GA status verified, article long enough with full citation to reliable sourcing. No copyvio issues identified with sources and spot checking. Image is verified as main page compatible. Hook is verified and interesting. QPQ done. Looks good to go--Kevmin § 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun and Kevmin: Our hook says "known to" but the article only refer to a single instance of a male carrying nine tadpoles on its back. I think we need to show that it is common for us to use this hook. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see an issue with this hook, we have a verified instance of a male carrying tadpoles, which is known in other taxa.--Kevmin § 14:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, the hook says "it is known to", and it is evidently known to do this. The 15ish specimens from the description were all collected on three distinct dates, it's understandable that they didn't have tons of observations of breeding in the species. AryKun (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun If they are truly "known to" we should have other examples or studies. I do not want the hook to end up at errors. Bruxton (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, the paper cited (which is linked in the article and freely readable) says "We found one male (not collected) carrying nine tadpoles on its dorsum during the wet season", so again, they are obviously known to. From Cambridge's definition for "known to", "If something or someone is known to be or do something, people know that it is true or happens", which this case fulfills. The hook isn't extrapolating to say it's common or anything, just that it is known to occur. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun Thank you. I could be wrong so I will ask @RoySmith: about their thoughts on stating this claim in the hook. I am not sure if the case of this male carrying tadpoles is anecdotal. Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be anecdotal ONLY if the paper stated something like "we have heard of this behavior but not seen". There is no way this would fall under the definition of "anecdotal".--Kevmin § 15:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "anecdotal" is the wrong way to describe this, but I can also see the argument that one observation does not support a "... frogs are known to" statement, which would imply that it's been observed by more than one frog and/or it's typical behavior. I think we'd do better with:
... that a male Ameerega munduruku frog has been observed carrying tadpoles on their back?
RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I like that. I think it is more accurate. Any objections to...
ALT1: ... that a male Ameerega munduruku has been observed carrying tadpoles on their back? Bruxton (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the definition of anecdotal is (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun and Kevmin: what do you both think about the hook ALT1? Bruxton (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 is the same as Alt0 with an unnecessary added level of handwaving. Also this account comes from a peer-reviewed research paper, thats kinda the definition of "research and facts".--Kevmin § 16:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: We are trying to get a hook which will not be challenged as it goes along through DYK checks to the main page. I know it can be frustrating frustrating tweaking a hook but if it makes it to the main page and then get removed at errors - it will be more frustrating. Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, I KNOW how DYK works after 450 noms in my tenure here. I also recognize when unneeded levels of FUD are bing placed on a hook. There is NO question that this behavioral practice exists in this frog species, unless you have sources that say otherwise?--Kevmin § 16:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! The frog is known from specimens observed on three days, and it was observed doing this on one of these days. How many people do you think there are observing frog reproduction in the Amazon? This is also pretty common behaviour in frogs and so we have zero reason to doubt it; the researchers aren't exactly claiming that the frog was seen tap-dancing on it's front legs while dressed in a tutu. AryKun (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin and AryKun: I am sorry that I have upset you both with my comments here. Another promotor will come along soon to sort out the nomination. Have a great weekend! Bruxton (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that DYK has a lower bar than GA or FA, but we're still basically supposed to be saying what the sources say. If we have one report of one frog doing something, that's what we should say. If it's well known that this is typical behavior for this species, then there should be other reports of it and it should be trivial to add some additional references to those sources. RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The species was described less then 8 years ago, so the assertion that other sources would document it ignores both the recent nature of the description and the slow pace of peer-review, its lucky that the article has images at this stage.--Kevmin § 23:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get the point you're making. We haven't studied it enough to have more than this one observation recorded in the literature, yet we're so sure this behavior is typical we shouldn't worry about stating it in wiki voice? You say There is NO question that this behavioral practice exists in this frog species. Based on what? WP:V is a core principle which can't be satisfied by having 450 previous DYK nominations. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no question based on the fact that it has been observed in the species. Cf ".. that humans are known to eat feces?". Perfectly accurate, since behaviour has been observed, regardless of whether it is common or not. I'm tired of arguing over this pointless issue, so whichever promoter passes by can do whatever they want to the hook honestly. AryKun (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • RoySmith You have not demonstrated that there is any data based reason to place extra restrictions on the verbiage of this hook. If you feel that the type description is faulty in its infarction, the onus is then on you to provide references that back that position. As of now the only argument that you have put forth falls squarely afoul of crystalballing ("but what if new data come out later").--Kevmin § 19:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, what I'm saying is "the article should say what the sources say, and the hook should say what the article says. The source says "We found one male (not collected) carrying nine tadpoles on its dorsum". The article faithfully follows the source: "A male carrying nine tadpoles on its back has been observed". So that's what we should say in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • RoySmith, could you remove the question mark symbol? An alt hook has been suggested and none of us seem likely to change our opinions, so just let a fresh promoter decide whether the hook is okay or not. AryKun (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm not going to remove it. If somebody else wants to approve it, they can and then it's on them to vouch for it being correct. That's the way it works. RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have yet to demonstrate that the alt hook is not accurate according to the CURRENT knowledge of the species. If your going to be obstinate about the subject, you need to show that something is missed, or your entire argument is boils down to you WP:Crystalballing.--Kevmin § 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kevmin I've come back to look at this again and I'm still unclear on what you want to see happen. At first it sounded like you were arguing against using ALT1 and insisting on using ALT0. It was on that basis that I added my query. Now it sounds like both you and AryKun are OK with ALT1. If that's the case, it sounds like we're all in agreement to go ahead with ALT1. I know I suggested it, but Bruxton officially proposed it, so I think it would only be a minor application of WP:IAR for me to approve it. If that's OK with both of you, I'll go ahead and strike ALT0 and approve ALT1. But I'd like to hear from both of you before I do that so we don't end up in another rabbit hole. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can't speak for Kevmin, but I am not okay with ALT1 in place of ALT0, I'm just tired of arguing the point. Just let another reviewer drop in and decide whether the original hook's okay. AryKun (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: Just chiming in here since there hasn't been any comments in a while, but ALT1 is probably the best option here since ALT0 appears to be a generalization that is not supported by the article, while ALT1 does match the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kevmin and AryKun: Since this has been stuck for a while now, do both of you agree to ALT1 so this nomination can be approved? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no, I do not approve of ALT1, based on back carrying being a noted trait of frogs in the poison dart family, so Unless evidence is provided that for some reason this behavior is NOT to be expected in this species, alt1 is adding uncertainty that does not exist in the hepatological literature. The onus is on you three to demonstrate this.--Kevmin § 17:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only certainty in the literature is that one frog was spotted carrying tadpoles on its back. @Kevmin and AryKun: as you do not wish to run a hook which is supported by RS (as backed up by four independent reviewers, including myself) I'm marking this nomination as rejected. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ameerega_munduruku&oldid=1198557776"