Talk:Kassina senegalensis

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kassina senegalensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Description and name

The description as given seems inadequate as to coloration. From a wide range of sources, the species seems very variable in coloration, with the basic colour ranging from beige to green to yellow to dark brown/grey. And the most common English name appears to be Bubbling Kassina. Ptilinopus (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BluePenguin18 (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Finished with the review! Sorry this took me three months to handle, as I was juggling my final undergraduate semester. Given that I am graduating with a degree in Microbiology, I significantly reworded the skin secretion subsection for immunological accuracy.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Amazing job overhauling this article! I am really impressed with your ability to identify these 19th and 20th century primary sources from the Biodiversity Heritage Library!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Aside from approachable language, the humorous phrasing of "they eat many different prey items, and use skin secretions to avoid becoming prey themselves" gets people interest in ecology/zoology. I tweaked the phrasing since the diet study overwhelmingly identified the species eating arthropods.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies 31% similarity with itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=663207, low enough to make plagiarism unlikely. The overlap appears to be the list of taxonomic synonyms, which is unavoidable. I extensively checked the article, and all statements seem accurate based on the reliable sources used.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficiently addresses taxonomy, anatomy, geographic distribution, reproduction, and diet.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I added a map of the Senegalese running frog's geographic range based on the IUCN Red List's 2013 data.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Once again, great job!