Talk:Common parsley frog

	Common parsley frog is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Comment- Changes and Deletions 10/13/22

Previous comments on this post about the range of the parsley frog as well as its tadpole size, amplexus habits, and clutch were very closely taken from source 5. I deleted the content, read source 5, and used it to create statements that were not copied or plagiarized, but rather succinctly summarized the information. I just wanted to note here on the talk page that some content was deleted for not having any citation or source and/or being taken too closely from a source.

Thank you!

Gracedekoker (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Grace Dekoker[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracedekoker (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Froggo1324, Jsun2148, JackRuvin0, Friedaloo.

— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Edits made:

I removed the word ecology from the “Ecology and behavior” subsection to limit redundancy.

Suggested edits:

There are some areas of the text where citations are needed. I would also try to add a citation to every sentence; specifically, the last sentences of some of the paragraphs are missing citations. It may just be that those sentences were cited by the footnote before, but it may be good to clarify.

One section that I was confused about was the tadpole behavior. I’m not sure what “notoriously poor competitors” consists of. Does it cohabiting with other frogs make them poor competitors or is their inferiority (relative to other species) when fighting for resources like food?

Another suggestion might be to move the descriptions about declining populations from the habitat section to the conservation section, but I think it’s also fine where it is.

Maybe adding an image or two would make the article more engaging!

Jsun2148 (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I think there should be subsections added that explain the type of predators and prey the common parsley frog interacts with. I think the lead section may have too much detail regarding the description of the frog, it may be repetitive. A picture of the frog mid-jump or of the tadpole may be beneficial. Also a description of what the tadpole looks like can be added under the description section. I added the fact that the frog is highly adaptable and protected under European law to the lead section as that is important information that should be included. There is some information that is not cited. Other than that, the article is well written and goes in depth.

Friedaloo (talk) 1:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Friedaloo

Revisions and recommendations

It seems that the majority of the content under the “Description” section is directly copied from the introduction section. Perhaps the repeated sentences could be removed for the sake of being concise? I think that an additional sentence explicitly stating why two separate mating seasons is evolutionary beneficial could be useful. All the invasive species mentioned under the Climate Change section can be listed in the first paragraph of the section to serve as an introduction of what is to come next. I also italicized the scientific name of the frog whenever I saw it un-italicized, along with the names of closely related parsley frogs.

There is an incomplete sentence under the Climate Change section: "The presence of this fish, as well as American red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii." Froggo1324 (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, the nominator has not addressed the issues, including insufficient expansion and referencing, and the article has since picked up a copyedit tag, meaning a significant edit for prose quality is also needed. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Image of P. punctatus perched in a damp environment

... that common parsley frogs are able to breed in both the autumn and spring seasons, and can choose one or both breeding seasons based on when it is most advantageous for them? Sources:
Jourdan-Pineau, Helene; David, Patrice; Crochet, Pierre-Andre (February 2012). "Phenotypic plasticity allows the Mediterranean parsley frog Pelodytes punctatus to exploit two temporal niches under continuous gene flow: PLASTIC BREEDING PHENOLOGY OF P. PUNCTATUSMolecular Ecology. 21 (4): 876–886. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05420.x.
Salvidio, Sebastiano; Lamagni, Luca; Bombi, Pierluigi; Bologna, Marco A. (2004-07-01). "Distribution, ecology and conservation of the parsley frog (Pelodytes punctatus) in Italy (Amphibia, Pelodytidae)". Italian Journal of Zoology. 71 (sup002): 73–81. doi:10.1080/11250003.2004.9525564. ISSN 1125-0003.
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by Gracedekoker (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewing... Howard the Duck (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough: - n
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - n
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A QPQ is not needed. The sources in the article are fine, but there is quite a bit of unreferenced content. It doesn't seem to have been 5x expanded within 7 days of the nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited since October 21st. They are currently taking a WikiEd course that runs until December, but unless they return or a 5x expansion is accomplished, there is no path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]