Talk:Moor frog/GA1

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.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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.