Talk:Nyctibatrachus radcliffei

Nyctibatrachus radcliffei 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: September 3, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Nyctibatrachus radcliffei 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 3 September 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.

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice frog, comments below:

also known as Radcliffe's night frog or the Thiashola wrinkled frog – not sure if the "the" belongs there?
- The "the" is correct, it's only omitted for names that start with possessives like "Radcliffe's".

based on an adult male specimen – does this mean that this specimen is the holotype, or that it is the only specimen the description was based on? Could be clearer.
- Reworded.

Are female specimens known? I am wondering because the description seems to be about males only.
- Nope, the only specimens are 5 adult males.

Within the genus, it is sister (most closely related) to a clade – You present this as fact, but isn't this just a hypothesis of a particular paper that is not "final"? If so, then we need author attribution to make this clear, I think.
- Done.

large webbing on the feet – "extensive" instead of "large"?
- I was trying to avoid copying wholesale from the paper, but it's CC-BY anyway, so screw it, changed to extensive.

a prominent Y-shaped ridge from the upper lip to the nostrils – I would love to understand this but I can't see it on the picture? Can you elaborate on this feature so that it becomes clear where to look for it?
- The pictures are pretty low quality, so I doubt if you'll be able to see it.

dorso-terminal groove – rephrase for the general reader? Should it be "groove on the upper side of the tip of the fourth digit" or similar?
- Glossed.

and the foot and lower leg being shorter than the thigh – Both combined are shorter than the thigh? Or either of them?
- Clarified.

I am wondering if it would be better to reproduce the figure of the paper as a whole, instead of cropping out the lateral, ventral, and dorsal views. I think the details of the toe tips (e.g., terminal grooves) and feet (e.g., extensive webbing) would be helpful to understand the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done, although the image displays at a rather small size. AryKun (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks good, thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2023 (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.