Talk:Oriental fire-bellied toad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now.

OK, this article needs some significant work:

general points

• A lot of standard information is missing that most GA have. Furthermore, this is an important species that received a lot of research; the article does not provide adequate coverage. Examples what is missing:
  • Who described the species, and when;
  • how was it previously classified
  • are there other common names
  • etymology of the scientific name
  • are there differences between sexes
  • body weight (and we need the length in cm)
  • How does it differ from related species?
  • Elevation?
  • There seems to be a lot of interesting research on calling behaviour
  • Different kinds of calls should be covered.
  • Bombesin not mentioned
• Did you notice the nice Polski WP article? That one is quite long, indicating that there could be much more to write about this topic. If you cover all important points concisely, though, this is fine, of course.
• Article needs a red thread. Try to provide the information in an order that allows a reader to comprehend everything when they read top-to-bottom. For example, before you say Oriental fire-bellied toads are incapable of extending their tongues to catch prey, but you should first state what they eat.
  • Introduce things first before going into details. General information first, then the specifics.

minor points

• The toad was once classified into two subspecies, B. o. practicola and B. o. silvatica, although newer research has found them to display few genetic differences, despite some physical ones. These findings support their classification as a monotypic species, albeit one with multiple morphs. – Interestingly, the study says that the split between the two morphs was a recent one (which means they could form separate subspecies if given more time). Maybe add this aspect (recent split)?
• The population in Beijing, despite having only existed since 1927, – needs background information for context; why since 1927, how did it get there?
• No references in the lead because everything should be repeated and cited in the main text in any case.

ON HOLD: Significant work required, unfortunately. I recommend to look at the Polski article to get some ideas. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will address most of these, but all of the research I can find about bombesin doesn't mention this species, only the European fire-bellied toad. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning bombesin: This is the first I found [1] but there are many more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help regarding that. Most of your other points are about taxonomy and etymology, though, and any information about either of those is highly elusive. This is the best info I can find [[2]] and it doesn't talk about the history of their classification and naming. I could add that their scientific and common names reference the Orient where they are found, but it feels original research-y, since nowhere is that explicitly stated. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Start here [3]. Look up the first description (its here: [4]). You note that it was originally classified as "Bombinator orientalis", so your taxonbox should have the author in brackets to indicate this: (Boulenger, 1890). It was later moved to the genus Bombina by Stejneger 1907. This is here [5]. This should be the basic history. If you can't find a source regarding the etymology, that is ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there still anything that should be changed? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Much better now! But I still feel we need broader coverage, as GA criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage" is, in my opinion, not yet fulfilled. We don't need all of the items listed below, but it would be good if we get most of them:
  • Most importantly, the "research" section (probably needs to be an own section) should be much longer, giving a better impression of the research that has been published. There really is a lot, see [6].
  • The "introduction" sections of these papers often contain some general information on this species, which could be interesting as well.
  • How does it differ from the other species? Maybe the first description has diagnoses?
  • active during day or night? I think this is an obvious question (search in Google Scholar for Bombina orientalis "diurnal species")
  • Tips of digits are orange, seems to be relevant
  • Any differences between male and female? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also, SI units (m, cm) should be the primary units per MOS:CONVERSIONS; also, best use the conversion template
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs ("In Captivity" section). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

How does it look now? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Great, that should be enough now! Some minor things to fix:

• Oriental bell toad, Chinese bell toad, eastern fire-bellied toad, and Korean fire-bellied toad – best place this information into "taxonomy", not in bold, but importantly these need a source. If you have a source, we also need redirects for all of them.
• Lead is too short, should summarize all major aspects of the article.
• link to Aposematism when you discuss the function of the colouring?
• The third section of "Description" should, I think, appear under "behavior".
• I also did a copy edit, please check if that all is correct. If so, after you addressed the few points above, we should be done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I got everything now. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing note: The article made huge steps forwards during the review. I did several copy edits myself. I now think it is up to standard. Congratulations. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)