Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Frog

Joint self-nomination. This article has been subject to a lot of attention by several editors (signed below) recently. It's had an Article Improvement Drive and a peer review (link); the issues raised in peer review have been addressed.

(Other editors involved but not available at time of nomination: Pstevendactylus, Lejean2000)

Comment The work put into this article was quite staggering during the last month or so. I would love to see this page become featured, as it is very good, and would prove that (with dedication) an article can go from something pretty bad (when I first saw it, frogs were wrongly classfied as Ranids), to "the best of Wikipedia". --liquidGhoul 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Masses of information have been added, the photographs contribute to the whole effect, and the structure is smooth and logical. Joyous | Talk 12:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I already said in the peer review, you guys did a great job on this article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great collaboration, great article. The attention to detail is impressive.--ragesoss 17:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow! Impressive! --Neigel von Teighen 17:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great. One small comment, I don't like to see a heading without any text underneath it, as in the "Natural History" section. Can the section have a three sentence overview? –Joke 17:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Article looks good so far. But it need to elaborate more about it's three chambered heart. It's very important in evolution for amphibians to evolve from two chambered fish (artrium and ventricle) and three chambered frog (two atria with one ventricle) and say something about mixing of deoxygenated and oxygenated blood in the same ventricle and how it affect frog physiology. Current article has only one sentence about this, and it's not really put into context. Temporary account 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added two sentences about it, but can someone copyedit? - Samsara contrib talk 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • check out this link http://www.lookd.com/frogs/anatomy.html for some insights! Temporary account 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you check out Frog zoology there is a section on the heart, and how it works. One of the objectives of the frog article (as I understand it) was to merge these articles. I think this must have slipped through somehow. Do you think we should add the circulation section to the frog article? --liquidGhoul 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Even though wiki's not a paper encyclopeida, I think it's better to merge them. Usually when you search about frog physiology in textbooks or in encyclopedia, it usually re-directs (as see also in the index) to other bigger topics. Wikipedia does have a problem to chopping up one main topic to many smaller, incomplete articles (as stubs), esp in science articles. Temporary account 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I did most of the merging, and took the decision not to include some bits (especially very boring details of the digestive system) that most people will not be interested in. Some of the material in that particular article may well be better suited to Wikibooks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. And I like frogs. RyanGerbil10 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Objection removed, pending resolution of Nixie's queries....Tony 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with the previous reviewer, but Criterion 2a is not yet satisfied. Here are examples.
"Frogs and toads are often distinguished based on appearance, but this has no scientific basis." (Second sentence in the lead.) I guess you mean that frogs and toads are typically distinguished from each other, not from other species; best to reword so that it's clear. The referent of "this" is imprecise. "on the basis of their" would be better than the awkward expression currently used. But most importantly, you imply that people CAN distinguish them on this basis, but then say that it's unscientific; puzzling.
"compared with" not "to" for contrasts.
"have legs modified for jumping rather than walking"—the "have" is awkward here; reword ("their legs ...")
"The physiology of frogs is generally characteristic of other amphibians (and differs from other terrestrial vertebrates) because oxygen may pass through their highly permeable skin. This unique skin allows frogs to "breathe" largely through their skin, but also requires that the skin stay moist at all times". False comparison—you need "that of" before "other", don't you? The first clause is awkward—frogs' physiology is characteristic of other amphibians, so ... um ... I guess it's characteric of frogs too. Can "but also" be replaced by "and thus"? However, there's still an assumption that we know why/how moist skin allows 'breathing'. Needs explanation.

On the surface, it's a good article, but when you scratch that surface it falls apart in many places. The whole text needs careful editing, not just these examples I've plucked out of it. Get a non-contributor to look at it? Tony 07:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the detailed comments. I believe the "compared with" issue is due to regional differences in English usage. Shakespeare writes "to", for instance. The rest has been fixed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather be compared with Hitler than to Hitler. All of the major US and UK style manuals recommend (some insist on) this distinction. Tony 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Get a non-contributor to look at it.": You offering? --liquidGhoul 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't look at who the contributors were; I may be able to help, but it's a rather large job .... (Tony)
  • Support but agree that much of what Tony suggests should be worked out. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - an impressive job; one small note :a drawing of the three-chambered heart would be welcome. JoJan 15:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am now wondering whether this would be better suited to the article about amphibians, as they all share this feature. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Well done. Giano | talk 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. All comments made so far have been addressed, with the single exception of a three-chambered heart image. If anyone can find or make one with a suitable license, please let us know! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's nothing about any French person in this article (Just kidding!) Daniel Case 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Should we take your vote seriously? Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • User has confirmed his vote is not a real vote. Please see my talk. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment We need to add more about use of xenopus oocytes in studying the cell cycle in the frog for research section. This together with yeast study have resulted in several Nobel Prizes. Check this out: http://www.nature.com/celldivision/milestones/full/milestone07.html Temporary account 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment...I looked this article over for a couple of days now and the only things I would like to see are a few more references...(I have to go into the fourth section to find the first footnote) and I would also like to see a better clarification that distinguishes a frog from a toad...maybe it is there, but I didn't see it. Otherwise, this is an excellent article.--MONGO 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't have time to work on it now, but true toads are a subset of frogs. Bufonidae should have more detail on it. Some things may not be necessary to include in the frog article. It already exceeds the recommended size "for some browsers". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of Gallery. Otherwise it looks OK. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you be more specific? Are you unhappy with the style of the existing gallery, or the fact that there is a gallery at all? Joyous | Talk 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure. Wikipedia is not a collection of "photographs with no text to go with the articles". We allow photo galleries to happen sometimes. There are perhaps some cases where content can only be transmutted with them. This is not the case in an article about Frogs and we should hold featured articles to a higher standard. There are plenty of pictures of Frogs which have been integrated into the text. Perhaps several if not all of the images in the gallery could be similarly incorporated. However, I object to having a gallery just because there were far more images than text to house them. If we have a featured article with a gallery it will open the flood gates. Use as many images as the text merits, but don't just throw them all in at the end. That's what WikiCommons is for, which is already linked from the arrticle. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The idea of the gallery is to show the diversity of frogs, there are over 5000 species, and we cannot show this diversity without pictures of varying frogs. We are trying very hard to keep this idea. We have thrown out very good photos because there was already a similar frog, from the same family. We do have two from the genus: Litoria, however one is a ground dwelling tree frog, and one is an arborial tree frog. Again, we are showing the diversity, even within a genus. If we were to just show the taxobox image, and some photos down the side, that would be misleading as to what frogs are. Maybe there should be an explaining sentence at the start of the gallery section? --liquidGhoul 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you convert this gallery to a table formatted list and include more information, such as the location where each species lives. If there's more to be said (diet, habitat, lifespan, etc.) then add that. I suggest List of Oz books and similar featured lists as a model. Regards, 68.101.254.59 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a good idea, except there is one problem in that you cannot include every frog, or even every frog family. With the Oz books, that includes EVERY book, and it makes sense. Evolution has produced frogs which do not follow straight lines of logic, so it is hard. I don't really see how it would work. --liquidGhoul 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an easy objection to address: just state that this is a selective list rather than a comprehensive one. I named that example for its superb presentation. Besides bringing the article into compliance with site policy, a good list can present more useful information and is easier to reference. Unfortunately fewer than 100 of Wikipedia's lists are featured so the poor average quality leads many editors to dismiss the format. Other good examples that integrate pictures and text include List of Final Fantasy titles and List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Durova 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can come up with a good way of presenting the diversity of frogs, then I would implement it, however a list like that is not feasible. You cannot base the list taxonomically, as there is so much diversity within families, and there are far too many genera, and there is still great diversity within genera. There are 50 states, and 11 FF games. There are > 5000 species of frog. Your examples do not apply. --liquidGhoul 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Continued on Wikipedia_talk:Featured article candidates/Frog. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This has become a great,highly informative article. Frankly I don't care if it becomes a featured article or not, because either way you guys did a great job, and I disagree with most of Wikipedia policies (or should I say politics?) Lejean2000 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly on comprehensiveness- as follows:
  1. The lead does not give a sufficient overview of the content of the article
  2. The ordering of sections in not optimal. It would be useful for the reader to introduced to the suborders/families of frog/toad before the differences are dicsussed in terms of physiology and so on
  3. Mositure retention would more logically be called- skin, this section could also then cover other things to do with the skin like skin secretions (which aren't mentioned at all) and Camouflage (which doesn't really fit where it is currently discussed).
  4. The distribution and status section is underdeveloped. Frogs are found worldwide ...., this is obvious. This is a good place to discuss the types of habitats where frogs are most likely to occur and to mention weird exceptions, like the Australian species that live underground in the desert and so on. It warrants more than a sentence. There is a huge body of literature on declining frog populations, which is not reflected here; at the very least the number of recently extinct species and endangered species should be included so the extent of the decline is apparent.
  5. The section on agriculture and research is too brief. Some important discoveries have been made using a frog model, for example the first successful clones were frogs. The reader should understand why frogs are useful for research and how they are used in reseach.
  6. The popular culure section has been shifted to a separate article- I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a little bit of information from there into this article in summary style
  7. Would it be possible for someone involved to make with the images in the article into a picture showing the life cycle (unreleated example). It is a lot more simple for the reader to visualise the detail with a pic like this.
  8. I don't think the gallery adds much - a table illustrating the different suborders included with the section on taxonomy would be useful though.
  9. I also echo Tony'c concerns about the language and grammar

--nixie 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I am going to create a list here. I have not completed all of these tasks, but as I do I will reply to your comments. If someone else addresses one of nixies points, use the points below to comment please.--liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. -
2. I have moved taxonomy to the top of the article. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Renamed it to skin, and merged the camouflage section. Also, I have moved poison so it is directly below it. If you read that section, you will find the skin secretions stuff you wanted. If you want expanding on anything, please tell me specifically. I don't particularly agree with you on this though. The moisture retention section contained specific adaptations the frog used for moisture retention (e.g .desert adaptations) Now it does not fit there. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But it could fit in the section on distribution.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Check out the Decline in frog populations article. It is extensive, and very good. It does not fit into this article, makes it far too long. As for the other section, it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The burrowing frogs ARE mentioned. I don't think it is suitable for distribution as much as it is for moisture retention (which is no longer there - see above). --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my points, which are that (1) That the distribution sentence is completely inadequate - it should be at least a paragraph, and that that paragraph could include some species with unusual adaptations (I don't care which) to flesh it out; (2) an estimate of the decline in frog numbers should be included so that the reader gets a good idea about the extent of the decline.--nixie 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
How is it now? --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

5 This will take the longest time. I need to get some resources, and it will probably take a little while.
6 Has been done by liquidGhoul. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7 Unless we can find a GFDL similar to the one you linked to, this may take some time as well. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
8 There are three sub-orders. That does not sufficiently illustrate the diversity of frogs. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, illustrating the diversity of frogs is an impossible task in the bounds of this artilce. A table of images illustrating the suborders would be useful for the reader, so that they are able to see and associate certain characters with each suborder.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The suborders are not easily distinguished based on overall appearance. This is an enormous problem for frog taxonomists, not to mention laypersons. The suborders are technically classified based upon such features as number of vertebrae, rows of labial teeth in tadpoles, positions used in the mating embrace (believe it or not), morphological details of the pelvic girdle, number of teeth on various bones in the skull, and (increasingly) genetics. None of these characters will be exemplified from pictures. I think you will agree that they are also not the most interesting features of frog biology to a general audience. Pstevendactylus 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

9 Has been addressed by Tony (see his withdrawal of objection). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Nixie can you please strike out when you are happy with a point. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. —Encephalon 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Did anybody looked into the article I posted a few days before? We need to add stuff about using frog eggs for research (MPF and cell cycle stuff) to show that in addition to yeast, fly, and mouse as model organisms, FROGS are important too! Also, I think research section should come BEFORE pop culture section. It's ridiculous when pop culture is first when you think about it. Temporary account 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, that will be included with the science section when we get to expanding it. Thanks
  • Comment Woops, looks like Pstevendactylus has already done it. I have rearranged so reasearch is above culture. I thought I had done this originally, as I completely agree with you on the importance. --liquidGhoul 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

--liquidGhoul 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)