Talk:Du Toit's torrent frog

Du Toit's torrent frog has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Du Toit's torrent 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Untitled

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Du_Toit%27s_torrent_frog

Beautiful rendition 156.155.227.100 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Recon rabbit 22:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Du Toit's torrent frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Olmagon (talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this nominated article. As a preliminary note, the nominator has an 85% authorship of the text as of this writing. Recon rabbit 15:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

~~Possibly link "montane" to montane ecosystems as an infrequently seen word.~~

Linked. Olmagon. (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following phrases "the digit tips are slightly white-edged", "the head is slightly broader than long", "The toes but not the fingers are half-webbed", "The skin of the back is distinctly warty and pitted" are almost verbatim as written in Reference 6, EDGE of Existence project, and ideally would be rewritten if possible to convey the same information, though it's understandable if there isn't a better way to describe the specific features. This information was added way back in 2014.

These sentences have been rephrased. Olmagon. (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to scrutinize. Meets MoS requirements, words to watch, lead paragraphs do not exclude major points of the article or include information not stated elsewhere, etc. Y

References

Layout: No issues. Y
No issues with the use of primary sources. Broad information is supported by the secondary sources, and most are citing the primary sources listed regardless.

Spot checking

Based on this revision:

[1]: Y
[2]: Y
[3]: ~~No access~~

This one can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library if you wanna check. The Ronalda Keith field note stuff is in the supplementary info. Olmagon. (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to wait until I got back to my university library to check. Most parts where this is used match up but the field description by Keith (coloration) (starting with "The coloration of live individuals was...") is not in this source, it's in [6] (EDGE of Existence project). At some point in the last 10 years that footnote got moved around - might just need to reuse it for that paragraph in addition to [3] which only describes Keith's record-taking in 1962 broadly. Y

If you scroll to the bottom and oppen the supplemental material you will find an excerpt from Keith's field notes, that's where I got the coloration stuff from, though I suppose the EDGE site could be used as an extra source too. Olmagon. (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I should probably remember to read what you just wrote out before I go ahead and make judgments. My bad. I at least learned that the Wikipedia Library has T&F access. Recon rabbit 22:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4]: Y
[5]: Y
[6]: Y
[7]: Y

Scope

Broad: Covers discovery, taxonomy, distribution, life history (as possible), description, conservation efforts. No major works describing the species are left out (I could hardly find any myself - some press releases from the Natural History Museum UK and a paper that states "data are lacking for P. dutoiti"). Y (Amphibians of East Africa could be of use, as a note.)
Narrow: Does not stray far from the topic at hand. Unnecessary detail is not provided beyond what is needed to understand the topic ~~(though some attention is needed at the Description level due to copy+paste concerns).~~

Stability

Neutrality: No particular weight or undue POV is present; with regards to conservation, more than just the IUCN assessment is discussed, which is welcome. Y
Edit warring: Low activity in the edit history, no evidence of edit warring. Y

Images

Licenses: All are licensed cc-by-sa 4.0 or cc-by-sa 2.0. Y
Relevance: Images are relevant to the text where they are placed. Y

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.