Talk:American bullfrog/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I'm going to be the good article reviewer for this article. I'll be assessing it in relation to the good article criteria, pointing out areas for improvement and making small alterations myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is strong on the behaviour of this amphibian, it's not so strong on the standard features of the species; in addition to an ecology section, I'd want to see a better description section, a taxonomy section (detailing the taxonomic history of the species, and any research into/speculation concern its phylogentic relationships) and a distribution section.

Currently, there are distribution and appearance details in the lead, but nowhere else. The lead should summarise what is said elsewhere in the article. This means that references will often not be required in the lead (although there's no rule banning them!) as the lead will only repeat what is elsewhere in the article.

The human use section has a cleanup tag which needs to be addressed.

The footnotes section is a bit higgledy-piggledy. Citations need to be formatted more consistently.

Some more comments

The Ecology and Behavior section is well written and referenced and is good as far as it goes. It covers reproduction well but says little about other aspects of behavior or about the tadpoles and their development.
The sector headings should be in lower case except for the first word and proper names.
The Description section is quite inadequate. It currently mentions size and details of the skull and tympani and nothing else.
The Human Use section has a number of single line paragraphs and needs to be rewritten as a coherent whole.
The lead is not a summary of the information in the body of the article.

This article should not have been nominated as a Good Article in its current state. I am putting it on hold for one week and, unless improvements are made during the intervening period, will then fail it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

I am failing this article as it does not meet GA criteria. The Ecology and Behavior section has been improved over the last few months but unfortunately other parts of the article have not. The lead and referencing do not conform to the MOS and the article is insufficiently broad in its scope. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]