Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of amphibians of Michigan/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012 [1].

List of amphibians of Michigan

[edit]

List of amphibians of Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting my latest effort in the list genre...we have (drumroll)...amphibians! I've been playing with this list over the last couple of weeks, and am at the point where I can't find further aspects to improve. Courcelles has been kind enough to take a quick look, and I think that (with his help) the issues of table formatting and accessibility have been addressed. There wasn't a lot out there to base this list on, so it's pretty much just off-the-cuff - please let me know if there is further information that should be included. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Since you have "binomial name" shouldn't the other column be "common name"?
  • De-capitalize "Name" in "Binomial Name"
  • I'd like it if the subheadings under the "references" section were semicolons instead of subheaders, producing:
General references

instead of what it is now; looks cleaner

  • More information can be added. See for example a list I've been working on List of reptiles of Minnesota. The notes column can be expanded for all amphibians, including size and color.
  • One species is considered to be threatened and two species are considered endangered care to say who they are, I think that's an important detail hinted at but not elaborated upon; violates wp:LEAD.

Albacore (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Albacore! I think I have addressed everything above. I had been waffling on adding a description column, so having someone ask for the inclusion of one helped me to make up my mind. On your last point, could you please elaborate on why this was a violation of WP:LEAD? I have added the information to the lead, but it was already present in the body, so I think the lead was a proper summary of the body previously - now it's just slightly more detailed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • This is just the prose critic inherent in my blood at this point, but I wish there was something less redundant than "The United States state of Michigan" at the start. Is something like "Michigan, one of the fifty United States" acceptable?
  • The hyphen after "considered endangered" should be a dash of some kind, either a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash.
  • I'm not a big fan of sentences that have multiple semi-colons, like the one that is in the second paragraph. It's a strong indication that a run-on sentence is present. There is an easy fix, however; make the "however" into "but" and swap out the semi-colon right before it, and it should be all right.
  • "In Michigan, wetlands protection legislation is in place that protects wetlands". Not saying this is a redundancy in the writing or anything, but I'd hope that wetlands protection laws protect wetlands. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have addressed all of your comments. I really like your solution in the first point - I didn't really like the way it was worded either, but hadn't been able to come up with anything else. Thanks for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments' picky ones...
  • Minor point but I would say "all members of the class" so as to make it clear you don't just mean the toads.
  • I think I would also prefer to see "twelve" "ten" and "two" rather than the digits...
  • "considered to be threatened " do you have an appropriate link for "threatened", e.g. IUCN or similar?
  • We normally advocate the use of non-breaking spaces between values and their units.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, TRM! I think I have addressed all of the above - we actually have an article (which I just found) on Threatened species, with a section specifically on the US definition...pretty cool. I also linked "endangered" to the proper definition. On the last point, I found the spot that I think you were talking about, but if I missed something obvious, please let me know. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The majority of the world's over 3400 species..." this doesn't make much sense and I'm struggling to come with an alternative. The sentence would be fine were it not for the use of "over". Perhaps change to "The majority of the world's 3400 plus species..."?
  • Lead image could do with alt text, alt viewer has the file name of the frogs as alt text, not sure if that is intended or not, would consider adding more informative text to those images as well.

NapHit (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, NapHit. I've changed the first point to your suggested wording - I'm still not completely happy with it (I wasn't before either), but I like your solution better than what I had. On the second point, I added alt text to the first image. On the remainder of the images, I'm not seeing how alt text could really be very informative ("a small frog on a log", "a small frog on a human finger", "a small toad on a leaf", "a salamander in water", "a salamander on a leaf", "a salamander on a log" and various repetitions thereof), or at least any more information than the scientific name of the animal, which is what most of the image names currently are. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • are there any amphibian species endemic to Michigan?
  • would it be possible to include a short paragraph about what kinds of habitats this class of organisms is typical found in? (see below for possible resources)
  • "There are no federal endangered species of amphibians native to Michigan." This sounds a bit funny to me ... can we say something like "There are no amphibians native to Michigan that are included in the Federal Endangered Species Act"?
  • possibly useful links: tropics; hibernate; water pollution; destruction; wetlands; chemical pesticides
  • technically, there's some trinomial names in the binomial name column; how do you feel about changing the heading to "Scientific name"?
Title: Eurycea bislineata (northern two-lined salamander). USA: Michigan.
Author(s): Soderberg Nicole; Yoder Teresa; Szuch Ernest
Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 40 Issue: 1 Pages: 106 Published: March 2009
I don't have access to this source, but I found another source with the same information and added it in. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients
Author(s): Werner Earl E.; Skelly David K.; Relyea Rick A.; et al.
Source: OIKOS Volume: 116 Issue: 10 Pages: 1697-1712 DOI: 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15935.x Published: OCT 2007
Added. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • have you seen this (to check for any missing species): Muzzall, P.M., 2005. Parasites of amphibians and reptiles from Michigan: a review of the literature 1916–2003. Fisheries Research Report 2077, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
  • some of the following literature might have extra information that could be used to buff up the intro (this last article in particular looks like it would be useful in adding some general information about the types of amphibian habitats in Michigan):
Title: Distribution of reptiles and amphibians on the Islands of eastern Lake Michigan: summary and analysis.
Author(s): Bowen Kenneth D.; Gillingham James C.
Source: Michigan Academician Volume: 36 Issue: 2 Pages: 213-223 Published: Summer 2004
Checked. No new species, not much about habitat. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Island life: A study of the land vertebrates of the islands of eastern Lake Michigan
Author(s): Hatt R.T.; Van Tyne, J.; Stuart, L.C.; Pope, C.H.; Grobman, A.B.
Source: Cranbook Institute of Science Bulletin No. 27. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Press
Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: New herpetological records for High and Hog Islands of the Beaver Archipelago, Charlevois County, Michigan
Author(s): Placyk, J.S.; Seider, M.J.; Gillingham, J.C.
Source: Herpetological Review Volume:33 Pages:230
Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Biogeography of the herpetofauna of the Beaver Archipelago: A synthesis and reevaluation
Author(s): Placyk, J.S.; Gillingam, J.C.
Source: Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society Volume:37 Issue:12 pages:210–15
Don't have access to this...was there anything specific that I should see? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Herpetological assemblages of the Michigan Regional Landscape Ecosystems.
Author(s): Holman J. Alan
Source: Michigan Academician Volume: 36 Issue: 2 Pages: 165-190 Published: Summer 2004
Used this source to add a paragraph on habitat. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • from what source(s) are the common names and the description information obtained? This should be made clear.

Thanks for the review, Sasata! Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything above. Please let me know if there is further work to be done. On the sources I don't have access to, if there was something specific in them that you were interested in seeing in the article, please let me know and I will try to access them elsewhere. You say that you think they would be useful to buff the lead, so if there was specific information that you were looking for answers on in the lead, please let me know and I can try to find the information someplace else. Thanks again for the review, Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I didn't have any specific additions in mind for those papers I mentioned, just wondering if you had seen them. The paragraph on habitat is great addition that definitely enhances the article—thanks. I'm satisfied the article meets FL criteria, and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Things that should be addressed:

  • Can't find it there either. Three other websites using it ([2] [3] [4]) make no contradicting copyright claims. We can't expect online sources to stay alive indefinitely, so I suppose this should be fine. Just add a link to the ODNR website.
  • File:Hyla versicolor.jpg – Description page names an original uploader, but leaves it unclear whether that person is also the author.
  • This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the author (User:Dawson) uploaded the image to en.wp in May 2006 (see this, search for Hyla versicolor). It was then uploaded to zh.wp in August 2007, and that has somehow become the "original upload". So, the author is the one who originally uploaded it, and the tag is wrong. Am I allowed to just going in and change the tag to the correct "original upload"? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're allowed. It's a wiki after all. Important is not who uploaded it, but who took the picture (see commons:Template:Information/doc for what goes where).
  • Same as above. And there's still a duplicate.
  • As far as FLC is concerned, if you can't add the information necessary to comply with our image use policy and Common's own requirements, you shouldn't use the image. Beyond that, you might want to nominate the image for deletion on Commons.

Things that would be nice:

  • The way I understand it, Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco is not the source, but the place where the image was taken.

Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added individual responses to the need to have section. For the nice to haves, I'm horrible with cropping and don't have good programs to do it with, so I'll probably leave that for someone else. I've added the information templates to the last three. Please let me know what you would like me to do with the need to have stuff - I'm afraid I wasn't too successful at finding sources for the three images that need them. Since I haven't been able to find these sources, should the images be removed from the list and tagged for deletion? Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied individually. Goodraise 12:23, 19 April 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_list_candidates/List_of_amphibians_of_Michigan/archive1&oldid=1089077927"