Wikipedia:Peer review/Frog/archive2

Frog

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FA. I have been working on it for some time and feel I need someone with a different viewpoint to point out its faults.

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Mark Thompson - I have a MSc in Zoology: studied phylogeography of long-toed salamanders. I am a practicing herpetologist and do ecological studies on amphibians. I will be helping with the peer review of this article and hope that my background and experience in this subject will be of assistance.Thompsma (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

My immediate and first response is where are the toads? The toad page is not much more than a stub. Since this is an article on Salientia (redirects to frog) and everyone wants to know the difference between frogs and toads, I would suggest renaming the article to "Frogs and toads" or "Salientia (frogs and toads)" with a redirect for "Salientia" "frog" "toad" back to this page.Thompsma (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entitled "Frog". I explain the difference between frogs and toads in the lead. The fact that Salientia redirects here is because nobody has yet written an article on Salientia.

It would be a good idea to get this all sorted out for the FA review. Create a page on Salientia - even a stub. The frog and toad distinction should be placed at the very top of the lead to get it out of the way.Thompsma (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on lead

The first comment raises a similar concern for Anura - the taxonomy of the title of this page needs to be sorted out. [See the TreeoLife] for starting assistance on this.Thompsma (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Tree of Life when writing the taxonomy section and even consulted David Cannatella, its author, on the precise definition of Salientia. Your help with the taxonomy part of the article would be most appreciated.

I'll get to the taxonomy part in the body of the article and can help with this, I am heavy into taxonomy and looking forward to updating some of my knowledge in reference to frogs.Thompsma (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They are excellent jumpers" - even African clawed frogs? Not all frogs are excellent wp:weasel jumpers. State clearly what you mean. Look up the etymology of the word Salientia and you will discover that it refers to their mode of locomotion. That would be a better factoid to use in reference here.Thompsma (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"many of their anatomical characteristics, particularly their long, powerful hind legs, are adaptations to improve jumping performance." - Once again, which frog? Be careful with just-so stories on adaptation.Thompsma (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"many frogs are semi-aquatic or inhabit humid areas." - I would give specifics on the complex life cycle - aquatic for eggs and development, aquatic to fully terrestrial in the adult phase.Thompsma (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Next sentence on burrow underground - perhaps put some information on winter hibernation and their anti-freeze capabilities. In other words, expand the content to cover the full scope of their bio-geo-climatic capacity in relation to their life-history.Thompsma (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Most tadpoles are herbivorous" - back to this mostwp:weasel bit again. Plus, the state of herbivory in tadpole feeding ecology is not exact. It is equally true to say that "most tadpoles are omnivorous". I have some citations on this and can dig them out. You can also google scholar it.Thompsma (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a citation on tadpole diets beyond herbivory.Thompsma (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but their greatest diversity" change to "the greatest concentration of species diversity" - explain exactly what you mean for each sentence.Thompsma (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Consisting of about 4,800 known species, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates and first appeared in the fossil record some two hundred and fifty million year ago." - "There are 4,800 recorded species making them among the most diverse vertebrate groups. Fossil records place their origins back to the Devonian period, 365 million years ago." Your timing is a bit off - I recommend the following title on the paleontology. I have all sorts of herpetological book references if you need any reference material or quotes.Thompsma (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! I was thinking of amphibian origins. This paper: "Divergence Time Estimation Using Fossils as Terminal Taxa and the Origins of Lissamphibia" puts the date for anurans at 264 MYA. Once I get my books unpacked I can check when the first fossil is dated. I have a copy of Carrolls book linked above and it will have the information in it. The sidebar has the date at the "Early Triassic-Recent, 250–0 Ma" and that will need to be changed.Thompsma (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some produce toxic secretions but despite this, many are eaten by birds, mammals, reptiles and fish." - A little too vague. They are prey to a range of predators that go well beyond the list provided. What about coloration and other defense tactics?Thompsma (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Populations of some frogs are in significant decline, some species have become extinct and the number of deformities among frogs is increasing in some areas." - Some frogs, many frogs, some areas, some species - it is a wp:weasel overdose.Thompsma (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel word page says "The examples given above ("some" in this instance) are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." If I am going to mention these points at all in the lead I need to use "some" unless you can suggest better phraseology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the weasel word page (see also "Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words". It might be better if I just go into the text and help re-write some of the sentences with you. I have also been hit with the weasel word critique. It just requires a bit of crafty word play to get away from it.Thompsma (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help in this way would be most appreciated.

The last part of the lead finally gets to the part about toads, but it is too late and it is not quite right. I am fairly certain that it is just based on an opinion, because it is not only appearance but there are historical reasons why toads have been named as such. There are some smooth skinned frogs still called toads, and some rough skinned toads called frogs. Taxonomic validity is not the right set of terms either. Simply state that the distinction is not based on formal taxonomic relations or their evolutionary history, but it is based on informal naming conventions that generally referr to the more warty species as toads.Thompsma (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lead along the lines suggested above. I have not revised the bit about the fossil record, leaving it until the "Evolution" section gets sorted out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote and expanded the lead after your work Cwmhiraeth. What I have written is too long, but I think it covers the material better. I'll work on the body of article and once that is completed we can return to the lead and trim as needed.Thompsma (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very grateful for your help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and taxonomy

You can merge these two sections, no need for a separate section having only a single sentence.Thompsma (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

A proper paragraph should have at least three sentences.Thompsma (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check your citation format, for e.g.,: cite book |title=Herpetology: Third Edition |last=Pough |first=F. H. |coauthors= Andrews, R. M.; Cadle, J. E.; Crump, M. L.; Savitsky, A. H.; Wells, K. D. |year=2003 |publisher=Benjamin Cummings |isbn=0131008498 |page= --> I would do it as follows: cite book |title=Herpetology | edition=3rd |last1=Pough |first1=F. H. | last2=Andres | first2=R. M. | last3=Cadle | first3=J. E. | last4=Crump | first4=M. L. | last5=Savitsky | first5=A. H. | last6=Wells | first6=K. D. | year=2003 | publisher=Benjamin Cummings | isbn=0131008498 | pages=736 - For FA status you will get hit hard on the citation formatting. Make sure it is all consistent.Thompsma (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been involved in promoting Bivalvia to FA and I learned a lot in the process about references and their formatting. I reckon the references for Frog are consistent and comply with requirements. The citation you give above lacks a page number but as I do not have a copy of the book I cannot provide one. Some play was made in the Bivalvia candidacy of the fact that the article used references put in place previously by other editors which I could not verify. I thought that if this was strictly appled, few articles would be promoted to FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

"The earliest known "true frog" is..." Triadobatrachus - not the frog indicated. See: Mauro et al. 2005. Initial Diversification of Living Amphibians Predated the Breakup of Pangaea. vol. 165, no. 5 The American Naturalist; and Anderson et al. 2008. A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders. Nature, V. 453.Thompsma (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can get rid of the phylogeny heading and merge the cladogram into the evolution section.Thompsma (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Phylogeny section has gone. The first source you list does not support your statement that "The earliest known "true frog" is... Triadobatrachus" but does support the statement that "The earliest known amphibian is... Triadobatrachus. I have added a preliminary paragraph and cited your source. The second source you list above indicates that the animal in question from Texas (presumably Gerobatrachus hottoni) is an ancestor of both frogs and salamanders. This agrees with what the article currently states and I have added the additional reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had a couple of sources. One did refer to Triadobatrachus as a frog, but most citation put it in with Salientia as a "proto-frog". I made some changes in this direction as well. I'll keep checking the facts. Will be gone to work in the field for 2-weeks, may have occassional internet access.Thompsma (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny

I am skipping ahead to recommend a collapsible for the phylogeny section:

Extended content

Anura

Leiopelmatidae

Pipanura

Xenoanura

	Pipidae

	Rhinophrynidae

Bombianura

Costata

	Alytidae

	Bombinatoridae

Acosmanura

Anomocoela

	Pelodytidae

	Scaphiopodidae

	Pelobatidae

	Megophryidae

	Sooglossidae

	Nasikabatrachidae

Notogaeanura

Australobatrachia

Limnodynastidae

	Myobatrachidae

	Calyptocephalellidae

Nobleoanura

Ranoides

This will save a lot of room.Thompsma (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea but know nothing about collapsibles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy what I did above and put a sentence in at the top describing the cladogram and to hit show at the right for it to drop down.Thompsma (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts

I think the lead could be shortened. A lot of the material doesn't seem necessary, especially the specific examples (which I think could be written much more succinctly or left out). For example, my impression is that the second and third paragraphs could probably be reduced to a few sentences each.
At the same time, I think a statement on how frogs are important indicators of ecosystem health might be useful in the lead.

I will do some work to pare the lead down along the lines you suggest.

If possible, it might be nice to change the color of the distribution image from black to something else. Personal preference. :-)

Done.

There are nine citations for "decline in amphibian populations." I would recommend merging them into one or two.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Having too many references can interfere with readability (the relevant page is WP:CITEKILL). One of the ways around this is to merge the references into the same ref tag, e.g. <ref>Ref1</ref><ref>Ref2</ref><ref>Ref3</ref> to something like <ref>See for example Ref1, Ref2, and Ref3.</ref> Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]

I think the "poison" section should be merged into "defence."

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]