Talk:Mini mum

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mini mum is very small? Source: Scherz, Mark D.; Hutter, Carl R.; Rakotoarison, Andolalao; Riemann, Jana C.; Rödel, Mark-Oliver; Ndriantsoa, Serge H.; Glos, Julian; Hyde Roberts, Sam; Crottini, Angelica; Vences, Miguel & Glaw, Frank (27 March 2019). "Morphological and ecological convergence at the lower size limit for vertebrates highlighted by five new miniaturised microhylid frog species from three different Madagascan genera"
  • ALT1: ... that Mini mum is miniscule, but not Mini scule? Source: Scherz, Mark D.; Hutter, Carl R.; Rakotoarison, Andolalao; Riemann, Jana C.; Rödel, Mark-Oliver; Ndriantsoa, Serge H.; Glos, Julian; Hyde Roberts, Sam; Crottini, Angelica; Vences, Miguel & Glaw, Frank (27 March 2019). "Morphological and ecological convergence at the lower size limit for vertebrates highlighted by five new miniaturised microhylid frog species from three different Madagascan genera"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eyabi Okie

5x expanded by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 15:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

• Hi AryKun, fun article, review follows: 5x expansion confirmed from 22 October; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I din't find any issue with overly close paraphrasing in a random check on the sourcing; hooks are really fun and check out to the article and the source (in so much that the frog is small); a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I will review this. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   There are a couple of things I would tweak.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I did some spot checks on random lines and pieces of information and all were sufficiently paraphrased and accurate to their sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not much that can be covered in the first place.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The lead is meant to summarize the article, so I would recommend removing the exact measurements. Also, mention there that it is thought be critically endangered.
  • Added the info about its conservation status, but the measurements should stay; they aren't taking up too much space, just saying very small is of very little use, and the lead is small as it is.
    • That's fair.
• The "Taxonomy and systematics" section is a little redundant; just say "Taxonomy".
  • Taxonomy and systematics are slightly different in meaning; taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying organisms, while systematics is the study of how animals are related to other animals.
    • True, but other other articles (including good articles such as Chinese nuthatch) usually just use a section called "Taxonomy" which also describes systematics. Also, per our article on taxonomy: "A whole set of terms including taxonomy, systematic biology, systematics, biosystematics, scientific classification, biological classification, and phylogenetics have at times had overlapping meanings – sometimes the same, sometimes slightly different, but always related and intersecting."
      • Well, that does say that the meanings of the terms are related, but subtly different. As for standardization, I've used the wording "Taxonomy and systematics" for all of the articles I've ever taken to GA and FA, which is upwards of 35 articles at this point.
        • I'm still inclined to disagree with your first point, but your second is solid. I've passed it as it is.
• Plainly stating its name is "humorous" is most definitely not WP:NPOV. Find a different way to word this.
  • The name clearly is humorous, and has been described as being so by most media sources covering the discovery of the frogs. Additionally, there isn't really another way to write this; you need to mention why media was reporting on this obscure frog, and it's because the name is funny.
    • I was thinking more in line of a direct quote, but none of the sources have one that would work, so I'll let it stay as it is.
• Switch "Habitat and distribution" around to "Distribution and habitat" because nearly every WP article on an animal species uses the latter.
  • Done.
• Just as a quick comment, sections on ecology and conservation are generally not lumped, but I'll allow it here because both would be absurdly should if they were separated.
• Spell out the full name of the IUCN and then put the abbreviation in parentheses after.
  • Done, haven't added the abbreviation since it isn't used again.

All in all, not bad. May these frogs continue to survive. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• An anonymous username, not my real name, I've replied to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • AryKun, I've replied to your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    • AryKun, I've passed it. Good work. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)