Talk:Oophaga solanensis/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like yet another interesting article from AryKun that looks likely to meet the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of adequate length, with 1,379 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 289 words.
• Authorship is 90.4% from the nominator with contributions from 13 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article and was a Did you know nomination that was posted on 16 May 2024.
• The first section is called Systematics. I believe that this is the same as that which is called Taxonomy in other articles. Consider whether the differences are sufficient for a different title.

• Changed.

• The image in the infobox has no title as there is no other information in the Wikimedia entry.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Suggest clarifying "Appendix I of CITES" in the lead.

   • Linked instead.

   • Suggest explaining some of the more specialised terms like tympanum in the body.

   • Glossed tympanum, I don't a gloss for omosternum (anterior part of the sternum) would be any more edifying than what's already there.

   • Add appropriate verbs for agreement to "adding the species to Appendix I of CITES, establishing ex situ populations, additional research on threats and distribution, and better regulation of trade of the species."

   • Attempted.

   • "Please check through instances where the species is given as plural. For example "O. solanensis have a dark black background color" and "O. solanensis have many spots" should read "…has…".

   • Pluralizing the species name, cf "Moose have a dark background color...". The species itself doesn't have colors, individuals of the species do.

   • That makes sense. I suggest the phrase "examples of O. solanensis have a dark black background color" would be clearer, but I feel that is likely a personal preference.

   • Consider "It may occur south to the western San Juan River" Should it read "…south of the western San Juan River".

   • No, south to is correct, it means that the southern limit of the distribution is the western Rio San Juan.

   • Consider a comma before "and" in "Populations of the species are very dense and entire subpopulations are vulnerable to being wiped out by a single threat".

   • Done.

   • Consider "The species has not been recorded from any protected areas". I believe it should read "…recorded in any protected areas".

   • Done.

   • I believe "regulation of trade" should read "regulation of the trade".

   • Done.

   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed. It would be easier to use with a separate section listing the pages, but this is not a GA criteria.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm the two Frost 2023 sources and Posso-Terranova & Andrés 2018 cover the topic.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 0% chance of copyright violation, which is extremely impressive.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • A cursory scan of Google Scholar identifies a number of articles on the species, including Gómez-Consuegra & Amézquita 2024[[1]], Medina, Wang, & Amézquita 2013[[2]] and Vargas-Salinas & Amézquita, 2013[[3]]. These, and others, could be useful resources for more information.

   • Latter two were published before the species was described and don't mention it afaics, the first also doesn't mention solanensis.

   • That seems reasonable. Either a problem with the algorithm or my search terms.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced and covers issues like the illegal trade in the frog dispassionately.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate CC tags. All are reviewed apart from Oophaga solanensis 126955852 (cropped).jpg that is extracted from Oophaga solanensis 126955852.jpg. The latter is also reviewed.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

@AryKun: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: see replies above. AryKun (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Very commendable work again, AryKun. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.