Talk:Danube crested newt

Danube crested newt has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 12, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Danube crested newt is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danube crested newt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lead is a little too long, per WP:LEADLENGTH.

I've tightened it up, should be better now.

Is there a particular reason you've placed the two photos in the body of the article and the painting(?) in the taxobox? Perhaps the photos could be placed in the taxobox and the painting could go?

The reason is that there are (i) only these pictures available and (ii) I'd like to have the photos a bit larger (they'd be shrunk quite a lot in the taxobox) next to the description section, because they really illustrate well their features.

Finally moved them to the taxobox. It does look better. Tylototriton (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"into leaves of aquatic plants" Do you mean onto?

Thanks, fixed.

This is by no means a part of the GA criteria, because it certainly works, but are you attached to the citation style with the page numbers in superscript? It's not really something I've seen before.

It doesn't seem to be common, indeed, but I think it is quite useful because it allows me to have a work I cite several times only once in the reflist, and to have only one list (rather than, for example, "references" plus "cited works").

The only real problem: I'm not clear on the sourcing of any of the photographs used. Were they taken by the uploaders, or not? If not, how do we know they have been released under a free license?

They were originally uploaded to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, with an appropriate license. I relied on Google Translate for this, but there really doesn't seem to be any problem for me; the tag mentions the original copyright holder.

I'm noticing that there's a lot on Google Scholar- have you delved into these sources? I notice that a lot of what's coming up is older than what you're citing; some of it may be too technical for a general encyclopedia article. For example, though, this may be interesting, and this and especially this suggest that the range may be broader than indicated here.

Yes, there probably is material to expand even more, but I just wanted to bring this to a good level that covers the basics. I'm actually working on Triturus for FA, and that's my priority for the moment. Thanks though for the Dnepr delta ref: I had seen this mentioned elsewhere, but not in the Jehle et al. 2011 book. I'll see if I can get hold of that paper, but just judging from the abstract, two larvae seem a bit weak as evidence for me, not sure if they can really be identified to species in that complex...

OK, I have learned now that distribution is broader, and the Dnepr delta was confirmed to me. I'll update the map and article, but I don't think I'll have time this week... Tylototriton (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no hurry; as long as you're not set on a super-quick promotion, I'm happy to wait. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did it today. Map and distribution are now up to date; also did some other small changes. Tylototriton (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great little article. Sources are great, the prose is good (I've done some copyediting, please double-check!) and all the bases are covered. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy-editing and review, Josh. I've responded to your remarks individually above. Tylototriton (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there's a moderate amount of literature out there, but I'm happy that this article summarizes it well (perhaps a further reading section for other articles would be a nice touch); my one outstanding concern are the images. As far as I can tell, they are all by Євген Писанець (Eugene Pisanets), possibly from Земноводні України, but I'm not at all clear on why we should believe that they're freely licensed. I'm not happy promoting this article to GA status until we're clearer on the licensing. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:, I'm not that familiar with the details of licensing on Commons, I thought the tag on the Ukrainian page was sufficient – it clearly states that the copyright holder (which does not seem to be one who uploaded them) allows all forms of re-use as long as their name is mentioned. But I'd like to clear this up, since these photos would be really good to have on Commons, not only for this article. I can contact the user that first uploaded them on the Ukrainian Wikipedia; what kind of declaration would we need? Would it be sufficient to know that he/she had permission from the owner or would we need direct proof from the owner? Tylototriton (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need direct proof from the owner. Basically, what often happens is that people misunderstand licenses or make assumptions they shouldn't, so we need content to be uploaded with good evidence of licensing. If the images were published somewhere, they may have been published with a declaration releasing them under a free license; alternatively, the uploader may have gotten a free release from the copyright holder directly, in which case it should be forwarded- see Commons:Commons:OTRS. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I asked the user on uk.wiki; waiting for answer. Tylototriton (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any progress on this? I'm not comfortable promoting this while there are images of such unclear licensing. I'm happy to wait! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: No progress for now. There seem to be issues with some other files the user uploaded. Not sure if there will be any answer, so I replaced the images with unclear licensing in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Not the most satisfying of endings, but I am happy that this article is now ready for promotion. I'll nominate the images for deletion on Commons; I'm not sure I'm happy leaving them be, but it's a slow process, so hopefully the issue will find itself resolved. Anyway, good work on the article- promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]