Talk:Moor frog

Miscellaneous facts

Or what about a "cultural influences" section that includes the Moor Frog game?? PurpleWriter (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that random facts should be avoided, so I moved what facts I could to applicable sections and deleted the rest. Unfortunately the moor frog video game does not fit anywhere, and when I add external links to some sites the links are automatically deleted. I could undo the deletion, but it does not seem wise. Moorfrogger (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of miscellaneous facts should be avoided, in general (See WP:TRIVIA). The facts should probably be incorporated into other parts of the article, where appropriate. (But the fact that there's a game named after this frog is kind of cool, even though it doesn't fit anywhere.) -Qeny (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could link to a website about the MoorFrog game as an External Link, rather than including it as a listed fact? PurpleWriter (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edible Frog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Help identifying potential moor frog

• 
• 

I took these pictures in Sarek National Park, Sweden. I think they are Moor frog (non-spotted underside, while spots going along the center of the back, similar look as pictures I saw in commons:Category:Rana arvalis), but I am by no mean an expert. Can someone confirm or correct my categorization? --Trougnouf (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elwhoelwu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AnnieLiu13, ShawnMohammed, Frogboi123, Luiscville, Hoonji2022, Carolinaalisio, Sophieeichler.

— Assignment last updated by Eurquhart02 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This article is overall very good. I made lots of minor edits to the wording and moved around some sentences. I think that there is a spot where a citation is needed, but I am not sure what source should be cited there. Overall, great work I think the article has been vastly improved by your efforts. ShawnMohammed (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Overall this is a very strong wikipedia page! I think that these additions have added a lot of great information and substance to this page. I made minor grammatical edits throughout the paper and added a few citations where there were none. Great job! Sophieeichler — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was very strong, and one of the few areas it could improve was in clarity. I made only minor changes in to sentences in multiple sections for clarity, including lead and conservation. No new information, just grammatical structure. Section on Distribution in Romania was reorganized. This was done Oct 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiscville (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relocated Population Threats into Conservation Section

Great description with the frog's ecology! I removed the "Population Threat's section and added it into the "Conservation" section as a subheading to make the chronology of the reading easier. As an entire work, the description of the frog's diet is thoughtful, though I would consider adding a description on the frog's predators and enemies to contrast the section. ~~~~ Hoonji2022 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a few Moor frogs are able to freeze solid to temperatures as low as −16 °C (3 °F) and thaw to survive? Source: https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjz-2019-0179
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Elwhoelwu (talk). Self-nominated at 03:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, long enough. Hook is interesting and sourced, but I'd like to see the exact information (to temperatures as low as −16 °C (3 °F) and thaw) included in the article as well. Please ping me once this is resolved or when you have any comments. Ippantekina (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• edited this line: "A few members from a population from Karasuk were able to freeze solid to -16℃, thaw, and survive albeit with mortality at >90%" Elwhoelwu (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "mortality at >90%" that's concerning for a DYK hook... Could we rephrase it to something like "a few Moor frogs"? Ippantekina (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC) @Elwhoelwu: nudge-- Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I would suggest something like "... that a few Moor frogs are able to freeze solid to temperatures as low as −16 °C (3 °F) and thaw to survive?" (cue a few) that is safer to convey the fact that mortality rate is higher than 90%. Ippantekina (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

References

changed to "A few members from a population from Karasuk were able to freeze solid to -16℃, thaw, and survive." Elwhoelwu (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 22:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I can try to review this. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

All in all, I simply cannot justify listing this as a good article for the reasons listed below. Please don't get discouraged, and remember that all of these issues can be improved. I recommend looking at existing good or featured frog articles to get some ideas.

General

• This reads like a personal essay in many places, especially the taxonomy section.
• A lot of the information is rather indiscriminate.
• The capitalization is seemingly random in places (uppercase species names; lowercase Early, Middle, and Late Pleistocene).
• Em dashes occasionally are spaced and occasionally not. They can be either, but pick one.
• Riddled with weasel words.
• No United States customary conversions are used for units.
• The pronoun "they" is used instead of "it" for individuals in several places (not that singular they is wrong, but that its use should be restricted to humans).
• Written in US English, but the spelling "colour" is used in an image caption.
• Many grammatical errors scattered throughout (severe comma shortage in particular).
• Use of the same words over and over.
• You repeatedly use hyphens (-) for connecting data values rather than en dashes (–).

Lead

• The lead is much too short. Also, citations for information cited in body are unnecessary.

Taxonomy

• This does not mention who first described it, synonyms, or subspecies.
• Very few citations.
• This section almost feels like it's explaining the general concept of families and genera, which it should not be doing on an article about a frog.

Description

• No issues unique to this section.

Distribution

• Its north-south range extends as far north as the 69th parallel in Finland — where the sun is visible for 24 hours during the summer solstice— and as far south as the Pannonian basin in Central Europe. How is this relevant?
• The entire distribution in Romania section could be scrapped to at most a paragraph, preferably just a few sentences. This is far too intricate and provides needless detail.

Diet

• Non-insect invertebrates of orders e.g. gastropoda This is worded quite oddly.
• Larger moor frogs consume fewer small insects not out of generosity towards smaller moor frogs, but because all large moor frogs were once small moor frogs. This is written in a very unencyclopedic and subjective tone.
• Thus, if large moor frogs consumed large and small prey indifferently there may not be enough small prey for smaller moor frogs harming the moor frog and its genes. This sentence has multiple grammatical errors.

Mating

• This suggests that post-copulatory competition may be just as important as pre-copulatory competition. There is no citation and this feels like original research.
• Females did prefer to mate with males Switching to past tense randomly.
• Long thumb length suggests poor sperm quality, and short thumb length suggests greater sperm quality. I think "higher" would be more appropriate than "greater".
• Males with quality sperm bred progeny with greater chances of survival. Despite this correlation, female individuals did not appear to prefer thumb length or be able to detect variation in thumb length. More tense switching.
• The tense issues (sometimes within the same sentence) are pretty much ubiquitous throughout this section, so I don't see the point of listing each individual instance.

Ecology

• A couple lines missing citations, one even tagged.
• "sound like air escaping from a submerged empty bottle: 'waug...waug...waug'. The quotations are never properly closed. Also, who is being quoted?
• Moor frogs will hibernate More random tense switching, this time to future tense.
• Everything in the effects of acidification on population could really do with some trimming. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, so this much weight should not be placed on a single facet of the topic.
• selects for investment in larger eggs at a cost to fecundity, imposes negative effects on reproductive output, and alters the relationship between female phenotype and maternal investment. This line is directly copied from the source.
• This is also why high habitat pH i.e. low concentration of protons in a pool causes egg coat glycans to deprotonate i.e. give up their protons which restores the egg coat’s negative charge/attraction to water. "I.e." is used a lot (probably too much) in this section anyway, but twice in the same sentence definitely needs to be pointed out.

Physiology

• The whole thing is a bunch of jumbled statistics with more incorrect grammar than correct.
• Moor frogs are known to utilize glucose as a cryoprotectant which is formed through gluconeogenesis—a natural process in livers.[41]Because No space after the citation here.

Conservation

• It is currently classified as Least Concern by the IUCN. Spell out IUCN on the first use.
• Acidification, eutrophication, and other forms of water pollution are negatively affecting the aquatic habitats of moor frogs which is exacerbating their already critical condition. "Critical condition" seems like a stretch (note that the source is specifically about France).
• In the conservation efforts subsection, each sentence is separately cited, when one citation could cover multiple.

As I said before, don't give up. You are fully capable of improving this. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Peer edit

This article is phenomenal. Great images and image captions throughout the article. Incredible depth of research. There were some instances of informal languuage (e.g., "The moor frog's genus, Rana, is a little more specific." I split the diet section into a smaller paragraph.

I thought that the taxonomy section was a little bit strange, but am not confident enough in this to change the article. It seems like you do very general explanation of genus and family that aren't necessarily important to a page on a specific species of frog. Frogboi123 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall this page is awesome and has tons of information. I do think that it is missing some citations, specifically in the beginning. I fixed some formatting issues, specifically putting some writing in paragraph formation and rearranging some of the sentences so that the information was presented in a more intuitive order. I also added links throughout the page where I felt they would be beneficial. I eliminated some unnecessary wordiness in order for the writing to be more clear and more direct.Sophieeichler (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Amazing article! Such thorough information throughout, covering a wide range of topics. Impressive work! I only made a couple of minor grammar edits and shortened/combined a few sentences. There is a citation needed for the "frog of the fields" expression, although a quick comb through the web was fruitless for me. In description, you state the male and female lengths; is this referring to snout-vent length, or something else? In the last paragraph of Distribution and Habitat, a quick explanation of the rewilding plans could prove useful. The only information I found to be more lacking was information about the tadpoles' description and diet. I am unsure of exactly what the rules for citing are, but I think you only have to cite at the end of a chunk of information, as long as there aren't other sources in between. Great job! It was a nice read. AnnieLiu13 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Contrary to a comment stated above, I felt as though the taxonomy section was great and provided a nice overview of the origins of the frogs name. I did, however, move it lower in the article since I feel as though other descriptions might be more important. I dd some general edits to sentence structure and divided some paragraphs into shorter ones to help with the flow of the article. I also removed some redundant information. Moreover, I removed some informal language such as the description of their breeding calls. Carolinaalisio (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The taxonomy needs some major work. It should include who described it, when, and any synonyms or subspecies. Additionally, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on animal species are written with taxonomy at the top, as this is one of the most important aspects, not all the way at the bottom. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit

I made a couple changes to address the comments from the Good Article review above.

1) "This suggests that post-copulatory competition may be just as important as pre-copulatory competition." --> deleted

2) "...selects for investment in larger eggs at a cost to fecundity, imposes negative effects on reproductive output, and alters the relationship between female phenotype and maternal investment." --> reworded so that it is not exactly copied from original source.

3) "This is also why high habitat pH (i.e. low concentration of protons in a pool) causes egg coat glycans to deprotonate (i.e. give up their protons) which restores the egg coat’s negative charge/attraction to water." --> defining protonation/deprotonation is outside the scope of this article. Got rid of text inside of parenthesis.

4) spell out "International Union for Conservation of Nature" in first mention of IUCN

5) "Acidification, eutrophication, and other forms of water pollution are negatively affecting the aquatic habitats of moor frogs which is exacerbating their already critical condition." --> these frogs are "least concern". They are not in critical condition. Reworded to "negatively affect aquatic habitats of moor frogs". Frogboi123 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)