Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphibian/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:50, 16 December 2012 [1].

Amphibian

[edit]

Amphibian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) and Axl (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is of a high enough standard. I worked on it as part of the Core Contest and it then had a thorough GA review performed by Axl who made many contributions to the article. FunkMonk was also most helpful, particularly with regard to the images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I conducted the GA review. My reviews tend to be more rigorous than average. I scrutinized the article and pointed out issues that needed fixing. I also made a number of minor changes directly to the article. This is a high-quality article, and I am struggling to find any further problems with it. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (33 images incl. some derivatives), source and author provided. Almost all are own work released into PD. 1 USGov-FWS. Edited: expanded 2 old images with PD-1923 - OK.

  • Support Comments from Jim Another major article, and a great effort. Comments below
  • though included in the group — is redundant, you've already listed them as amphibia
  • among species — not all species, perhaps in some species?
  • Amphibians also use their skin — Why "also"? You have given a use for the skin previously
  • Not sure that's obvious from text
  • and have no lungs. — lack lungs?
  • The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats — I'd prefer a more academic ref if possible, but this will do if nothing better
  • a skull very similar to the lobe-finned — a skull very similar to that of the lobe-finned fish
  • supra-occipital — no link or explanation
  • Please don't mix AE and BE spellings (centimetre, meter)
  • began to evolve and invaded the land where they provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to emerge — too many beginnings
  • frog – salamander— I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I'm unclear why it's an endash and not a hyphen
  • palaeontological, ultraviolet, metabolic rate, ossified, capillaries, prearticular bones, cloaca, cornified— no link or gloss (or at least not at first use
  • the circulation is similar to that of fish.—No idea what that means
  • "Circulatory system" section — largely repeats information from "Characteristics", perhaps the latter could be trimmed?
  • Tadpoles' eyes resemble those of fish—Again, not particularly helpful
  • a few (e.g. Fejervarya raja) can inhabit brackish water and even survive (though not thrive) in seawater — How?
  • refs 132 and 138 have no publisher
  • refs 122 and 124 are the same

Drive by comment

I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good job. LittleJerry (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Very well-researched article. I'm impressed. As a general glance, refs #14, 76 and 96 are dead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just picked a single paragraph and found several issues, which makes me think this article needs quite a bit more work - here's what I found in just that single paragraph, for now:
    • tail with dorsal and ventral fins: too technical (and not even wikilinked!), better to say "fins extending upwards and downwards from the backbone" - "spine" might still be acceptable if backbone is felt to be too Anglosaxon.
    • There are fifteen species of obligate neotenic salamanders, including Necturus, Proteus and Amphiuma,: Those are not species.
    • The northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) is one of these and, depending on environmental factors, either remains permanently in the larval state, a condition known as neoteny, or transforms into an adult. [..] The adult tiger salamander is terrestrial, but the larva is aquatic and able to breed while still in the larval state.: It is never stated whether the A. gracile permanent larva is also reproductive.
    • Neoteny occurs when the animal's growth rate is very low. This is usually because of adverse conditions, such as low water temperatures that may inhibit the production of thyroxine or prevent the larva from reacting to the hormone in the normal way.: Sceptical of the way this proximate mechanism is presented as the final explanation. If continued development in the described conditions were advisable, the biochemistry of the salamander should have changed to accommodate this. It is likely that an excess production of thyroxine during cold periods would incur starvation by devoting too much energy to development at times when food is scarce - peer reviewed literature can likely be found on this. Highly unsuitable in this context is the use of the word "normal" - since the thyroxine response is consistently programmed across individuals of a population, there is nothing abnormal about it - "usual" would be more acceptable, but even better would be something like, reacting to the hormone as at higher temperatures.. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have clarified "species".
4. I have deleted "in the normal way".
I do not have access to the references to check on points 1. & 3. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Rephrased and wikilinked.
3. Added this information and an extra reference.
4. It seems that it is not so much that thyroxine production is inhibited but more that the tissues react differently to the hormone. I have rephrased this bit and added a useful new source. You may have chosen a single paragraph on which to comment, but I think the subject of neoteny and paedomorphosis is a particularly difficult topic and this article covers it in considerably greater depth than does the article on salamanders. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm slowly working my way through it, but I'm going to put up some comments for now.

  • There are some issues with the language in certain sections where it strays out of the passive voice. Particularly where there is reference to males and females often overusing "he" and "she" which makes it sound like a children's story rather than an encyclopaedia article. We aren't talking about specific individuals, but the entire sex of certain species or taxa. I have cleaned up some of this, but not all.
I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes as you requested. However, the section "Parental care" is full of references to his and her behaviour and I do not think it would be sensible to change these. My main source of inspiration for this section, the Stebbins book, uses these pronouns when discussing the care of the young. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with them being used, I just didn't like their overuse in some sections. Thanks for the change. --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This frog lives in fast-flowing streams and internal fertilisation will prevent the sperm from being washed away before fertilisation occurs."
    • This implies that they lay directly after mating but they actually mate in late summer and lay in early spring, which suggests another cause. Also, thousands of species lay in fast flowing streams (much faster than the streams where I saw Ascaphus) without the need for internal fertilisation.
This is the reason given by the source. I have added a further sentence to explain that the sperm may be retained by the female. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photos need improvement, particularly the lead photo which has the back of a poison dart frog on paper-towel, a barely visible toad and an absolutely terrible photo of a caecilian. Somebody needs to trawl through Flickr and ask for some photographers to release good caecilian photos on applicable licences because they're basically not available on wiki. Otherwise, there are plenty of better frog/toads shots around and even the salamander could be improved. I think the Italian Crested Newt photo should also be replaced with something better. This isn't a reason to reject this article, but for a subject so broad there needs to be more featured picture quality photos in the article. --liquidGhoul (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what can be done about the images. The lead compilation was made to replace one that had been there historically because I gather the previous one had problems with sourcing. I will consult our image "expert". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the Italian Crested Newt image. Many of the images are selected because the specific amphibian they represent is mentioned in the text. This limits the range of images that are available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a new image later today, the present one was found on Commons to replace the former one which was unsourced. A new image would need to have an image of one of the extinct groups as well in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?[2] An anuran (no "toads", since they're not a clade), a salamander, a caecilian, and a member of an extinct group (the specimen is often figured in the literature). The two on the left are featured images, the two on the right are pretty good also. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the collage, thank you. I attempted, uunsuccessfully to add "alt text" to it. How can this be done in the context of the taxobox? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter is called "image_alt". Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 07:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, it's much better and I love the inclusion of an extinct group --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just reviewed another paragraph and found a similar number of issues, some of which are now somewhat addressed (by me). Principally, it's not clear to me that it's the article's job to give a brain morphology 101. What it does need to do is clearly state what is unique about amphibians as opposed to their ancestors and descendants (i.e. their fellow branchers that are now differently classified as reptiles and then again, etc. - if there is an omniscient higher power, he/she/it knows that I hate paraphyletic taxa). So anyway, there needs to be greater selectivity and more relevance in that section. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in improving the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only high frequency sounds like mating calls are heard in this way but low frequency noises can be detected through another mechanism. There is a patch of specialized haircells, called papilla amphibiorum, in the inner ear capable of detecting deeper sounds. Another feature unique to amphibians is the columella-operculum complex, adjoining the auditory capsule, which is involved in the transmission of both airborne and seismic signals. The ears of salamanders and caecilians are less highly developed than frogs as they do not normally communicate with each other through the medium of sound. Can we just confirm that none of the adaptations described are unique of frogs? Because if they are, this is the wrong article for them. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Turning to my invaluable Stebbins I find that both frogs and salamanders are unique in having columella. These are equivalent to the stapes ossicle in higher vertebrates. I have adjusted the article text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. What makes http://amphibiaweb.org/index.html a high quality reliable source?
  2. Likewise http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=amphibian?
  3. And http://www.michellecaldwell.com/linkfiles/scaredcricket/index.html?
  4. And http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/prehistoric-amphibians.htm?
  5. Ref 16 (Crump) needs a publisher. Repeats as a source for ref 76, needs fixing there too.
  6. Ref 17 (Zug) needs a page number
  7. Ref 28 (Badger and Netherton) appears to be a children's book, what makes this a high quality reliable source?
  8. Ref 35 (Benton) needs a page number
  9. What makes http://www.arkive.org/chinese-giant-salamander/andrias-davidianus/ a high quality reliable source?
  10. What makes http://www.lookd.com/frogs/index.html (ref 49) a high quality reliable source? It also lacks a publisher and author.
  11. Current ref 51 goes to some personal blog - http://www.amphibanat.org/
  12. Same problem with ref 52 as with 49 right above - what makes it reliable and lacks author and publisher.
  13. Current ref 57 http://staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us/gfoster/standard/bamphib.htm appears to be a school project/teaching notes/something. What makes this reliable?
  14. ref 78 (Duellman) looks borked somehow - has a "work=Encyclopaedia" field showing.
  15. What makes http://pages.uoregon.edu/titus/herp_old/neoteny.htm a high quality reliable source? (current ref 84)
  16. What makes http://www.herpfrance.com/ a high quality reliable source?
  17. What makes http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Amphibia/characters.html a high quality reliable source?
  18. Ref 135 is a PhD dissertation - needs formatting as such so it's clear that's what it is.
  19. Why is ref 136 (Regier) got sooo much in the link? I think something got borked there.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to this page, "AmphibiaWeb was created in conjunction with the Digital Library Project at the University of California, Berkeley." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but who is responsible for the content? Are the articles written by experts or students? We're looking for a high quality sources at FAC, not just plain reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AmphibiaWeb - "Species accounts are being added regularly by specialists and volunteers". Each species account is fully referenced. If one is trying to write a comprehensive article on Amphibians, one would be lost without AmphibiaWeb. Scientific papers on a species may tell one all sorts of detailed information on obscure topics but for the background information on the species, one turns to AmphibiaWeb, itself gleaned from the published literature. I believe AmphibiaWeb is a reliable source. It was used in my FAs Frog and Common toad without any queries. See this Species account for an example. If you were to disallow AmphibiaWeb I guess I would withdraw this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to this page, the writer "is a historian, author, journalist and lecturer based in Lancaster, Pa." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes her a reliable source per WP:SPS though? We'd expect her to be an expert in the field - but it doesn't sound like she's an expert in biology, much less amphibians. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an etymological dictionary (book) which gives the origin of the word "Amphibian". I removed the Etymology section and incorporated the information in the Classification section, new reference 12. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. I have replaced this unreliable source by a Google Book chapter by Robert L. Carroll, author of a number of books on vertebrate palaeontology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. According to this page, the author, "Bob Strauss is a freelance writer and book author; one of his specialties is explaining scientific concepts and discoveries to both a lay and professional audience." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, we're looking for high quality sources at FAC. I would expect experts here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced this with the same book source as 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. I have reformatted both these under "cite journal". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Page number not known so I replaced this with another paper by Blackburn, D.C. (California Academy of Sciences) and Wake, D.B. (University of California, Berkeley) both of whom have many publications in this sphere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. So Amazon categorizes it (Badger & Netherton) as a "children's book". So what? The information is accurate. Indeed the article's text that the reference supports is well known among zoologists and isn't controversial at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, we're looking for high quality sources at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a children's book - I had it out from the library general Biology section. The information provided is not controversial and I can source it from elsewhere if required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this source with a TOLweb page written by David Cannatella and Anna Graybeal of the University of Texas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8. This is a single web page so no page number is needed. The author is the Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of Bristol, with many papers on vertebrates and palaeontology to his name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number has changed .. it's now 34 - (that's why I said "Benton" after it, so if the numbers changed slightly, it'd be possible to find it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't provide a page number so I have replaced the source by the appropriate AmphibiaWeb page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. According to this page, "ARKive is created and run by the charity Wildscreen. Our team of dedicated and creative people based in Bristol, UK and Washington D.C., USA, is made up of passionate scientists, technology gurus and social media whizzes." Half of their staff have zoological degrees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the articles you're using written by experts on the subjects though? Or just someone with a bachelor's in zoology? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could source this well-known fact from other sources such as AmphiiaWeb, the IUCN or Stebbins but I thought it was desirable to have a wide range of sources. You will find that ARKive species accounts are referenced and have a statement of authentication from an expert. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I"ll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than leave this to other, probably unresponsive, reviewers, I have replaced the reference with one from AmphibiaWeb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10. I guess it's not a high quality reliable source. I have rephrased this sentence and replaced the reference, - Stebbins again.[1] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11. This reference has gone AWOL. The information to which it referred was superfluous and I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. I guess it's not a high quality reliable source. I have rewritten this part using a zoology textbook.[2] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13. Its teaching notes from Desert Vista High School, Phoenix, Arizona. I have replaced the reference with one from a more reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Stebbins book.[3] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14. I have fixed the reference (Duellman). Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This reference, now 77, was reformatted slightly and now looks OK to me. Is there still a problem with it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, totally misread this, yes, you got it right first time. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. According to this page, the information is "Presented by the University of Oregon Biology Department" and "Supervised by Dr. Tom Titus". Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Titus though? Is he a subject matter expert? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Titus has a number of published papers on reptiles and amphibians. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16. I have replaced this reference with one from a more reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AmphibiaWeb Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17. Because it's from the University of Bristol. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible for the content though? Is it a subject matter expert or is it some random grad student studying reptiles instead of amphibians? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this reference (a student project). The whole of the paragraph is covered by the Stebbins reference at the end of the paragraph. "Who is this Stebbins?" do I hear you ask? Well, he is/was the Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley and Emeritus Curator in Herpetology at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18. Fixed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19. Trimmed a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered the list for ease of replying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Stebbins, Robert C. (1995). A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 0-691-03281-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Dorit, R. L. (1991). Zoology. Saunders College Publishing. p. 847. ISBN 0-03-030504-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Stebbins, Robert C. (1995). A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press. p. 100. ISBN 0-691-03281-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


, neither of which features is found elsewhere in the animal kingdom. - strikes my ears as an odd - I'd try ", neither of these features (being) found elsewhere in the animal kingdom."
Rearranged Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Anura subsection, the three isolated sentences and a preceding bit I have converted into a second paragraph. Maybe a sentence descriptor on the first two suborders would make it less listy.
I have expanded this paragraph a little more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The order Caudata (from the Latin cauda meaning "tail") consists of the salamanders—elongated, low-slung animals that mostly resemble lizards in form, though this is a symplesiomorphic trait and the two groups are no more closely related than salamanders are to mammals - confused. Two groups = caudata and anura?
Confusion cleared up Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something - does it mention the largest amphibian that ever existed? Some info on this would be good in the article, and possibly as a few words in the lead to contrast the size of it compared with the Chinese salamander.
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I'll take another look today as it's a big and important article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference nitpicks by Sasata (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. don't need access dates for journal articles
  • 4 & 24. title case or sentence case for book titles? Why is editor abbreviated as "(Ed.)" here, but earlier (#1) as "ed."?
  • 5. 57 pages is a wide page range to hunt for a fact, could you supply a specific page number?
  • 7. The publication year should be February 2006, not 2011 (see bottom, "Citing this page")
  • 9. check stray capitalization
  • 10. missing a fullstop after last author initial
  • 13. check capitalization
  • 18. missing editor designation
  • 19. Rebert->Robert
  • 21. author format different; publication year not consistent with what's on web page (check throughout for other instances from ToL web project) Also, check throughout for capitalization consistency of "Tree of Life Web Project".
  • the "A Natural History of Amphibians" source is repeated unnecessarily 18 times. Please check the article Psilocybe aztecorum as an example of an easy way to multiply cite the same book. You could also use sfn-style referencing to do this. Similar situation with the 1991 Zoology reference.
  • 30. author format
  • 32. missing space in author initials. JSTOR and doi lead to same location, only 1 required
  • 33. clicking on linked article title leads to journal homepage (not helpful)
  • 41. double period
  • 42. double period, ed. format. If you're giving the authors of a chapter, should give the title of the chapter too.
  • 45. double period
  • 52. redundant jstor/doi (check refs throughout)
  • 66. is this a book chapter? If so, it should should be formatted as such.
  • 67. sentence/title case?
  • 70. There was a discussion a year or so ago about ARKive as a RS when they donated a bunch of species pages to help fill out Wikipedia articles (I don't have a link); I think they aren't high-quality enough for FAC (note also their caveat "This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: …"). Should replace this if possible.
  • 71. page range format. open access icon probably better at the end of the citation (instead of the end of the title). Is this source really the only one that's OA?
  • 72. add "School of Life Sciences" to publisher field
  • 73. double period
  • 78. journal publisher not required
  • 79. missing volume#, stray capitalization in title
  • 81. double period; parentheses, not curly braces
  • 89. needs full page range
  • 90. why not give Martha's full name? Also, should this not be formatted as a book chapter?
  • 91. extra space after Charles W.
  • 110.title/sentence case; no publisher for journals; incorrect volume#, missing issue#
  • 111. unclear what kind of source this is. Thesis? If so, use cite thesis template and indicate degree type and educational institution.
  • 115. double period
  • 117. check page range formatting (stray colon)
  • 118. missing author
  • 125. ditch publisher
  • 128. title/sentence case?
  • 129. double period
  • 131. use cite thesis template, and give institution; remove accessdate
  • 132. format as book chapter
  • I think I have done all these except:
  • 5. Its a long paper and I don't have access to its contents to pin the pages down more accurately.
  • 91. I'm not sure what you mean here.
I fixed it. – Maky « talk » 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting looks fine to me now; feel free to move the nitpick list to archive talk if you want to clear up some room here. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Review by Maky

  • Many of images have very simple captions, just specifying the name of the species and sometimes where/when it was found. This isn't a requirement, but I suggest more meaningful captions when/where possible. For exmaple: "Triadobatrachus massinoti from the Early Triassic of Madagascar" -> "Triadobatrachus from the Early Triassic of Madagascar is the earliest known frog." Granted, since it's not mentioned in the text, a source would be needed for that. (And, actually, the article later talks about an even earlier "proto-frog", but this was just an example.) Hopefully that gives an idea. Basically, I think it's a good idea to have images and their captions speak for themselves. The hope is that it will draw the readers in... because, let's face it, most people just read the lead and look at the pictures.
  • In the lead, I find it odd that you link "New Guinea frog", especially since the Wiki article for the species doesn't give a common name. Maybe say: "The smallest vertebrate in the world is a frog from Papua New Guinea (Paedophryne amauensis)..."
  • I find it odd that batrachology points to this article, whereas most branches of science receive their own article. I suggest creating a stub and linking the first use of the word in the article. Otherwise you might want to make the first mention bold so that people who search for "batrachology" on Wiki can see why they got redirected to this article.
  • In the "Evolution" section, why is Labyrinthodontia considered the "main article"? I know they were a grade of primitive amphibians, but the information seems misplaced. I would think that the main article would be an article entitled Evolutionary history of amphibians. I know it's beyond the scope of this FAC to fix up related articles, but for now, maybe you could create the suggested article and redirect it to the specific location within Labyrinthodontia that discusses amphibian evolution. Then when you or someone else has time, the proper article could be organized and written, extracting much of the more general information from the article on Labyrinthodontia. Also, another good article for a "main article" would be Evolutionary history of tetrapods, in case you're up for pursuing this someday.
  • "They developed "hands" and "feet" with five digits..." – I don't know if it's worth mentioning (or saving for an "Evolutionary history of amphibians" article), but I thought there were some interesting recent finds showing that early tetrapods didn't always have limbs with five digits. Some had many more than five. Your thoughts?
  • There are duplicate links for "million years ago".
  • "...though some, such as Ichthyostega, may have sometimes hauled themselves out of the water." – Is this still the latest view? I remember some considerable debate about early tetrapods and their ability to walk on land. Anyway, the source states that it if Ichthyostega did come onto land, it would have used it's front limbs to pull itself along and would have dragged its hindquarters. Given the common misconceptions about early tetrapods, it might be worth clarifying this point early on. I would bet that most readers would read the quote above and a cumbersome tetrapod slowly walking out of the water on four legs.
  • "...provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to emerge from the waters." – Maybe I'm overly sensitive on language because of perpetuating misconceptions about various stages in evolution, but I would suggest phrasing this: "...provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to adapt to the terrestrial environment." There's technically nothing wrong with what you wrote. To me, "emerge from the waters" sounded like there is some deliberate, inevitable direction with evolution (moving from fish towards us). Maybe this was inevitable given all the preadaptations evolved for the low-oxygen, freshwater environment. Anyway, I'm not saying that you were suggesting this, but instead, this is how I could see readers interpreting it. Again, I'm nitpicking, so maybe it's fine as is. Your thoughts?
  • "the divergence of the three groups took place in the Paleozoic or early Mesozoic." – Can an approximate date be given in parentheses (~252 mya)?
  • "They needed to develop new means of locomotion to replace the sideways thrusts of their tails that had been used for swimming." – Was this adaptation (change in locomotion) made by amphibians? The sideways flexing of the spine is still used in reptiles and most amphibians that I know of. Just think of a snake gliding along or a lizard running. Granted, they're not using the tail, but the movement of the spine didn't change until much later. Maybe a brief clarification is needed.
  • The article talks about the complicated cladistics of amphibian classification, but why is there no mention of amphibians being a paraphyletic group?
  • "The oldest known caecilian is Eocaecilia micropodia, also from Arizona..." – When?
  • "Practical considerations seem to favour using the former arrangement." – What practical considerations?
  • Link first mention of Albanerpetontidae.
  • The article uses the term "cold-blooded" several times. Why not mention the word ectotherm (in parentheses with a link)? Even in the lead, I personally would prefer to see "cold-blooded" (unlinked) changed to "ectothermic" since that is more precise. In fact, I think this is what is now taught in schools. (But then again, given the state of science education, particularly in the United States......)
  • Consistency: "(from the Ancient Greek an-, without and oura, tail)" and "The order Gymnophiona (from the Greek, gymnos and ophis meaning "naked serpent") or Apoda (from the Ancient Greek an-, "without" and poda, "legs")" – Earlier, you used ancient Greek letters, and this time you don't.
I see some corrections, but not Greek letters. But it's not a huge deal. – Maky « talk » 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scale-free skins" – singular or plural?
  • "A unique feature is their ability to feed by suction using only one half of the lower jaw at a time." – I don't understand the last part of this.
  • "...although some lay their eggs on land and have developed various ingenious ways of keeping them moist." – "Ingenious"? It sounds like they planned it out.
  • Link first mentions of spermatheca and spermatophore.
  • "The extent of adaptations to specific environmental circumstances among amphibians is remarkable." – "Remarkable" doesn't sound very objective.
  • Under "Territorial behaviour", do amphibians do "push-ups" as threat displays, or is that only some reptile species?
  • "Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinction, have been noted in the past two decades..." – Starting when? This could easily become a dated statement.
  • "...over the next 5 years" – Same as above.

Aside from these relatively minor issues, this article is very well written and comprehensive. I look forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • One last point: In the lead, there are several bits about the largest and smallest amphibians, as well as the names of the fields of study. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, these should be mentioned (and cited) in the body (per WP:LEAD), thus removing the need for citations in the lead. (You can leave them there if you want.) – Maky « talk » 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the largest and smallest information to the appropriate section. I was at a loss where to put the information on "batrachology" so I created a small section at the end of the article called "Study". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That addresses all of my concerns. As long as the references are up to par, then I support this nomination. – Maky « talk » 11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fixed some anchors. "Coauthors" is a deprecated parameter (Last1, first1 ...) and harv-syntax is not active by default for some (most?) citation templates (ref=harv). A very nice article on a huge topic. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Amphibian/archive1&oldid=1210506676"