Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smooth newt/archive1

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [1].

---

Smooth newt

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Another newt article, this time "the most ubiquitous newt of the Old World". Looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Random comment from Aza24

• Confused by "Central Asia" – the map is showing only a single dot in Kazakhstan, so I'm not sure using the term "Central Asia" is appropriate, that makes it sound like it's spread throughout multiple central Asian countries (Unless the map is wrong). I would stick to just "Northern Kazakhstan". Also Siberia is not in central Asia so I'm not sure how "central Asia (Siberia and northern Kazakhstan)" makes sense. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's true. I've removed "central Asia" in the lead and Distribution section now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Funk

We can never have too many newts at FAC. I'll have a look soon, at first glance, there are a few duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out – I should have caught the remaining duplinks now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Link newt, and any other terms only linked in the intro, at first mention in the article body as well.

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "6 Later, the species was included in the genus Triturus, along with most European newts. This genus however was found to be polyphyletic" It probably wouldn't hurt to give dates and authors for these revisions as well.

There's several papers that found polyphyly (three cited), but I've now added the authors for the split from Triturus. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "This genus name had first been introduced by the English zoologist Thomas Bell in 1839, and the smooth newt is the genus' type species." This would mean there's a gap in the taxonomy section, since the species was evidently already assigned to that genus in 1839. So what happened in the meantime?

Restructured this section now and mentioned some more genus synonyms. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• There are also a bunch of other synonyms in the taxobox that may warrant discussion.

Hope it's better now with some more genera it was placed in, but i wouldn't want to get into too much detail here (there's 60 synonyms). Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Three subspecies are accepted" By who and when?

Added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems we're missing the interesting story of how and when various subspecies were split off as their own species, and if the same may happen to the remaining ones?

Should be clearer now. The remaining subspecies don't reflect clear genetic units and have ongoing gene flow (see Evolution), so it's unlikely they will be split off. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "as an exception among newts – slightly larger than the females" Doesn't that now also apply to the split off subspecies?

Probably yes – I now removed the "exception" part. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Any photos of eggs?

Unfortunately not. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is the breeding and aquatic phase the same? A bit hard to figure out by how it is written now.

Yes, I use them as synonyms in the text. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this could be made clearer, then, because I was not sure whether they were meant as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Went through it again but don't see where it is unclear; are you referring to a particular part? Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "1–1.5 mm" Don't know if there is anything this could be converted to, but should be added if there is, here and other places.

Don't think it makes much sense to convert mm? Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Under breeding characteristics, you mention differences in body shape, but are these general differences, or only during breeding? Are there no non-breeding differences?

There's no clear differences outside the breeding phase (see under "Similar species"). Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "They initially have only two balancers at the sides of the head" What is meant by balancers? Are these the same as the gills?

Explanation added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why is some text in italics and some not in the table?

That was to highlight the, in my opinion, most useful characters for distinction, but I realise this is subjective and I don't really have a ref for that, so I removed the italics now. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "The nominate subspecies, L. v. vulgaris, is most widespread." But where? You only mention where the other subspecies are found, I assume the reader could infer it, but it would be clearer to just state it outright.

Restructured section. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "being declared a "controlled pest animal" in 1997" How so if it was first recorded in 2011?

Restructured section chronologically and added detail. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "including predation and competition" What would it compete with there?

Frogs and invertebrates, now added. Tylototriton (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "were therefore split off as separate genus Lissotriton in 2004 by García-París and colleagues.[8]:233 This genus name had first been introduced by the English zoologist Thomas Bell in 1839, with the smooth newt is the genus' type species," Still seems odd this is not in chronological order. Shouldn't you logically begin by saying it was placed in its own genus in 1839, then moved to another genus, and then back to its own genus in 2004?

The thing is that Lissotriton never seemed to be a widely used name, it was just used later because it was the first name typified with a species from the clade it referred to. Tried to make it clearer again by mentioning Lissotriton with the other genus names earlier on and dissociating the split from the use of the genus name. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think the image of the udnerside[3] could be cropped, so we don't show so much unnecessary dirt. There are also other underside photos on Commons which might be better?

Now using this one which I think is better?

• "The male attempts to attract a female's attraction" Seems a bit clumsy with the double attract. Why not just "the male attempts to attract a female"?

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Paedomorphism, where adults retain their gills and stay aquatic, occurs regularly." Under particular circumstances?

Added more detail now and split it off as separate paragraph. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• The evolution section would probably make better sense right after taxonomy (which has related info), as in most other animals articles.

Done, although I personally think "Description" is the part most readers will be interested in rather than Taxonomy and Evolution... Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "but must come from a legal source." According to what legislation?

The source probably refers to German legislation though not explicit; now rewritten to make it more general: "from a legal source under the applicable legislation given their protected status (see above)" Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if amputated needs a wikilink. But if it is retained, I think cannibalism would be more important to link.

Both done. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "have however have not" Double have is clunky.

That was one "have" too much – removed. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "been fully resolved. Within the smooth newt" Looks like this should have been a single sentence?

No, but there was an "and" too much, should be clearer now: "Within the smooth newt itself, genetic groups do not...". Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• " the smooth newt was later classified in the newt genus Triturus before being placed in Lissotriton." As above, tis sequence of events seems a bit misleading, since it was placed in Lissotriton before Triturus. Not sure that level of taxonomic detail is even needed in the intro anyway, which seems a bit too long for an article this size.

Rewritten as "the smooth newt went by different genus names before the current classification in Lissotriton was adopted". I do think mentioning the recent taxonomic changes in the lead is important because many available guides and textbooks will be outdated on this. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Any reason why the intro doesn't follow the same subject order as the article body?

I think it flows more naturally this way, and I think its important to have the description and distribution in the first paragraph. That's what most people will be interested in and it will be shown in the previews when hovering over a link. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The smooth newt is one of the most common newts" Only seems to be stated in the intro.

Rewritten was "is common over much of its range", which is stated in the Threats section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, but as I think the additional info in the sources listed below will be an improvement, remember to ping me when it's added so I can look it over. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support by Esculenta

• Oppose based on 1b & 1c. Overall, the article seems underdeveloped. For such a common species with a large body of literature, I would expect a featured article to be considerably longer (it's currently about 2400 words). What is presented is competent, but after trawling through the literature, it seems like a lot of potentially interesting detail is summarized abruptly, and much recent research isn't mentioned. I looked through google scholar, searching for results published after 2016 (>1400 "hits"). For example, have you considered including any of this research?

I'm striking my oppose; several of the sources below have been added and I think the article is now more comprehensive. Esculenta (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• effects of climate on species distribution doi:10.1186/s12983-017-0239-4
• pathogens that affect this species (ranavirus doi:10.11011/158428 and doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41214-0; picornavirus doi:10.1007/s00705-016-3198-8; helminths doi:10.1017/S0022149X18000184 also this
• use of artificial hibernacula in cold climates doi:10.3390/d10030056; constructed wetlands doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.005
• more recent research of the location of LGM refugia doi:10.21638/11701/spbu03.2016.323
• can displaced smooth newts orient themselves towards home? doi:10.1080/03949370.2015.1059893
• skeletal anomalies doi:10.18502/kls.v4i3.21
• has there been any work on developing genetic methods to help with management and conservation? doi:10.1007/s12041-018-0934-8
• environmental factors (e.g pollution) affect the ossification of the skull doi:10.1134/S1995082919020159 and have other effects doi:10.18502/kls.v4i3.2096
• what does the newt do in winter? here

The "Captivity" section is only two sentences; is there nothing else relevant that could be said about this? For example, there are several more details that have not been utilised from Spareboom 2014.

As it stands, I'm not sure the article meets FAC criterion 1c ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). Esculenta (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Many of these look like primary source studies. Usually for science topics it's preferable to rely on secondary sources (eg. books or review articles) as individual studies may not be confirmed by later research. Still, I wonder if there is info that could be added to the article. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding secondary sources, I would suggest consulting Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas (2004); it is recommended (by Spareboom 2014, p. 240) as an excellent source on the natural history of this species. Spareboom also suggests Wiens et al. (2011) for information about the evolution of the male dorsal crest, a subject of research I don't see currently mentioned in the article. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Esculenta, thanks for your comments and the literature suggestions. It's always tricky to decide which are the "major facts" that make an article "well-researched". My impression was that the level of detail is comparable to other FAs of the same category. I am not quite convinced that the articles you point out would make a relevant contribution, but I am happy to add them and additional primary sources if other editors support this. I did add some more on captivity from Sparreboom 2014. The Handbuch is unfortunately not available online, a bit too expensive for my budget, and all libraries here are closed at the moment. Also, it might be a bit outdated now – I've relied mainly on the Sparreboom 2014 book and especially the Grosse 2011 monograph and would be surprised if the Handbuch was more detailed or up to date. Tylototriton (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with the literature, but I don't think it would hurt to add some of the above info. Personally, I try to add as much info as possible about a species I write about, unless the literature is gigantic, which it doesn't seem to be here, and it's a fairly short article, so more text wouldn't bloat the article. But I wouldn't depend my support on it. But in the end, an article's length and detail should depend on the size of the literature, not on other FA articles, because those articles may be about species where little is known, and therefore the literature is less extensive, and the article logically shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, convinced. Give me a few days to incorporate these and other sources. Tylototriton (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Esculenta and User:FunkMonk, I've added data from 15 primary sources now, see my changes. Tylototriton (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments by Esculenta

• why link Siberia but not Kazakhstan?

MOS says country names should not be linked.

• ”reach a total length” don't think “total” is required here

Removed.

• ”The dry and velvety skin becomes smooth during the aquatic phase.” The idea that these animals have different “phases” has not yet been introduced, so the placement of this statement is a bit jarring.

Rephrased to "The skin is dry and velvety while the newts live on land but becomes smooth when they migrate into water for breeding".

• ”and classified as Least Concern species.” by who?

Added IUCN.

• ”placing it in the same genus as the green lizards.[4]:206” The volume of Systema Naturae should be indicated. I went to page 206 in volumes 1, 2 and 3 and couldn’t find reference to this species. Could you please check? Can you link directly to the page?

Thanks for pointing that out – the page number, which came from the Frost database, was wrong, now corrected and linked.

• ”and most recently, it was included in the genus Triturus” perhaps include the year so the reader can quickly see how recent this is

I don't really have a ref for this and not sure there's a precise date – other names were published even after the first publication of the first Triturus combination, but the latest books definitely all use Triturus.

• authorities in the taxobox should be linked

Done (and one corrected).

• link morphologically

Done.

• the fact that this species has more than 60 taxonomic synonyms (stated in the taxobox) should be mentioned in the taxonomy section, and (if possible), a reason for why there are so many.

Done, and number corrected (48 if the subspecies synonyms are not counted).

• ”…around four to six million years ago.” the linked phrase leads to the article Myr, an abbreviation that is not used in the article. Is this link really helpful for the reader?

Probably not – removed.

• palmate newt should be linked on its first occurrence

Done, and the same for alpine and northern crested newt.

• ”The head is longer than it is wide, with 2–3 longitudinal grooves” where? top, bottom, sides?

Top, now specified.

• ”The male has dark, round spots, while the females have” singular/plural mismatch between male/female descriptions

Now using singular consistently in paragraph.

• link mucus, toxin, denticulated

Done.

• ”Albinistic and leucistic individuals have been described.” Albinism was already mentioned in the final sentence of the previous paragraph

Now merged the two phrases.

• check throughout for page ranges with hyphens that should be replaced with endashes

Remaining ones replaced.

• link conifer, red list

Done.

Thanks for your comments, Esculenta, think I've addressed them all, see above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome; I've changed to support above. Esculenta (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Four weeks in and only one support. Normally I would add it to Urgents, but it has an outstanding oppose. What progress in being made in turning this around? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow progress, I only edit on weekends. Made changes requested by Esculenta and FunkMonk now, waiting for their verdict! Tylototriton (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The new text looks god to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Looks very good overall and I think I can support shortly. Thanks for the nice newt articles, enjoying them (and sorry for being so late with this one).

• The article does not always follow the structure of other animal species articles. Information about the subspecies is spread across the article (in the description and distribution), while in other articles there is usually a dedicated paragraph within taxonomy (e.g., Common toad, Garden warbler). Furthermore, the weight and length is provided in separate paragraphs, while they are usually discussed together (the weight just after the length) in other articles. I do not feel strongly about these points, but want to point this out nonetheless; it can make it more difficult for people to find the information they are looking for.

I personally think taxonomy, description and distribution should be treated under the respective sections, including for subspecies. But restructued the description section so that size and weight are in the same paragraph.

• The description is a bit on the short end. I would have, for example, expected something on the head coloration, there seem to be black stripes and, in breeding males, also some blue?

Added detail for the stripes, but there is no mention for of blue on the head in my sources (and it doesn't appear on all photos of breeding males).

• An description of the efts is also missing (only larvae and adults are described)?

Sources dont give specifics for efts, but added in larvae section that their size is equal to that of the biggest larvae.

• Maybe a sentence about the eggs as well (e.g., egg size). I guess the eggs are indistinguishable from those of the closely related species?

Egg size is given. Source says that eggs can be distinguished from other species using genetic methods (not surprising), but doesn't say explicitly whether they look different from other newts or not.

• and the name of Triton, the ancient Greek god of the sea, – I would argue it is "an ancient Greek god of the sea", there is also Poseidon and other sea gods.

Done.

• palmate newt – not linked at first occurrence

Done.

• The male has dark, round spots, while the females have smaller spots which sometimes form two or more irregular lines along the back. – This begs the question: What is the color of these spots in females?

Now specified.

• Albinistic and leucistic individuals have been described. – Albinism was already mentioned

Two phrases now merged.

• In central Italy, it was found that the range of the smooth newt relative to that of the neighbouring Italian newt (L. italicus) was determined by climate. – It would be interesting to know what climate changes have such an effect. The reader may want to know this at this point.

Now rephrased to "In central Italy, where the range of the smooth newt subspecies L. v. meridionalis overlaps with that of the Italian newt (L. italicus), it was found that the latter prefers a warmer and drier climate".

• (of which Parastrigea robusta was found to cause the local decline of a population) – Could you add the location of the population?

Country (Germany) added.

• and that's it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Jens Lallensack, see replies above! Tylototriton (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. Certainly one of the best FAs that I read recently. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Another coord note

Has there been a source review and I'm just missing it? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: If you are, so am I. It is still on the Source Review Needed list. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Cite 29: Should there be an access date?

Not sure; it's a journal article and the link is just to an available PDF.

• Cite 10: You have used a journal template; is it?

Changed to book.

Nice job of formatting.

Spot checks; cites

• 3a, check.
• 3e, check.
• 36, check.
• 32, check.
• 33, check.
• 23, is this referencing just the material in brackets, as is suggested by the cite being within the parentheses?

Yes, it's just for the statement inside the parentheses.

• 5n, check.
• "Ireland (where the smooth newt is the only newt species)" Which of the four sources given is used to support this statement?

Added citation inside brackets.

Ah ha! You are ahead of me.

Looking pretty neat so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

I'm mainly looking at prose and readability. I don't have the subject knowledge or access to sources to comment much on accuracy or comprehensiveness. The article is in very good shape, and I have no doubt I'll support once a few minor points have been addressed:

• Please can we have parenthetical explanations of some scientific terms so the reader doesn't have to click away from the article and make it more accessible to a lay audience? (eg "eft", "diploid", cloaca")

Added parentheses for the three terms mentioned but not sure it would be useful in other places or just add clutter...

• They are typically sun-exposed, free from fish, stagnant, permanent or water-filled for at least three months, close to similar water bodies, and have shallow areas with abundant water plants Bit of a run-on sentence, and it's not clear what you mean by permanent or water-filled for at least three months. I assume you mean water-filled either permanently or for at least three months, but is that any three-month period or three months out of the year? Also, isn't "permanent or" redundant to "at least"?.

Rephrased to "water-filled permanently or for at least three months of the year"

• found in slightly brackish water Although implied in the list of potential habitats, this is the first indication that the species (generally) only inhabits fresh water.

Freshwater now clarified at beginning of paragraph.

• eft redirects to newt

Yes, an eft is a special instance of a newt (a juvenile) – but I prefer to keep a separate link in case there's a separate article for "eft" in the future.

• and an overall age of 6–14 years can be reached in the wild "Overall" is redundant. In fact, you could rephrase to "can live for up to 14 years" or similar to avoid the passive voice.

Now "and the newts can reach an age of 6–14 years in the wild".

• It has been shown that females tend to mate "it has been shown" is redundant and can be eliminated with no loss to the reader.

Done.

• However, this assessment included subspecies "however" is a watch word at FAC and this instance doesn't really add anything. Suggest removing or at least replacing with something weaker like "although".

Removed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry! Tylototriton (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Tylototriton, have you addressed Harry's points? If so, you need to ping him. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, now pinging Harry! Tylototriton (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.