Wikipedia:Peer review/Green and Golden Bell Frog/archive1

Green and Golden Bell Frog

Hopeing to get this article to FA. It is longer than the White's Tree Frog which is also FA, and there is a lot more info around about the White's Tree Frog than the Green and Golden Bell Frog, so I think that you couldn't put very much more in to this article. It needs a few more reference, could you please add {{fact}} where you think references are needed. If someone is willing to give it a copyedit/grammar check that would be great too. Thanks -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you on the amount of information available. There is so much published on this species you would think it was Australia's only endangered species! The normal sections of taxonomy, physical description and distribution are good content wise (though need a serious copy-edit and lots of citations). The Conservation status is the one I am worried about. Although management is mentioned, it needs further elaboration. Salinity, and its effects on both chytrid and the frog are not mentioned, and the use of saline ponds to help conserve the species. Also, there is a lot of information on their ecology and behaviour. I read an article recently about their preferred winter habitat, which should be included. It also seems to be missing some other things, but I can't pin down what; I will get back to you on that. I will try and copyedit this, but I am currently working on quite a few articles, and may not get the time. One thing which is throughout the article which is annoying me. Try to use "The Green and Golden Bell Frog" at the start of paragraphs instead of "This species". Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about creating a whole new section called "Management". Cheers -- Froggydarb ^croak 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paras now start with "Green and Golden Bell Frog" where appropriate. -- Froggydarb ^croak 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the effects of salinity on the tads and chytrid (still a bit dodgey) but can't find anything about using saline water as a measure to help and conserve the species. -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Recovery Plan has some good stuff, but it only glances over the salinity thing (page 39), as research hadn't occured when it was written. I will look some things up for you. --liquidGhoul 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your grammar check, please see Wikipedia:Spellchecking. Word processors are not the answer, but they can help by pointing out the most common problems (e.g. singular/plural disagreement between noun and verb). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest this article written by Tony1, it is very good even though it is currently incomplete. --liquidGhoul 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The similar species section seems like it sould be mentioned in taxonomy rather than in its own section. Reproduction is probably long enough to stand on its own as per the layout of White's tree frog.--Peta 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved reproduction out of ecology and behaviour, but when similar species is moved under taxonomy the pictures are all bunched, maybe have it like reproduction was, a separate section under taxonomy. Thanks for all the helpful info. -- Froggydarb ^croak 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The similar species paragraph is just a description of where this species fits into the complex - which is exacly the sort of thing that should go in the taxonomy section of an article, it doesn't need to be a subsection in the taxonomy.--Peta 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have refs for almost all of comments where you requested a ref. Just need to added them, I'll do it later this afternoon. -- Froggydarb ^croak 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have fixed up all the refs and queries. It still needs a bit more on management and a grammar/copyedit check. Thanks all :) -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to put any more citations in to the article? -- Froggydarb ^croak 07:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]