Talk:Mini ature

Mini ature 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: January 31, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Mini ature appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Mini ature is the largest frog in its genus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mini ature.

Wikipedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Mini ature 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.
	It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality.

Africa: Madagascar Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Madagascar portal This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mini ature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get hopping on this (ooooh, bad but fun pun!) right away... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Taxonomy section:
- "It is regarded as an invariable noun." ... I have no idea what this means - link or something to make it clear why it's here?
  - It means a noun that doesn't change in its plural, like sheep or deer; added a gloss.
- link for "monophyletic"
  - Done.
Description section:
- "After 14 years of preservation in 70% ethanol, " I presume that there is some concern that the preservation might have affected the coloring/description, otherwise, I'm not sure why this is included?
  - Yes, preservation tends to discolor specimens a bit.
General:
- Is there only one specimen? It seems to be implied by the text of the article, but it's never explicitly stated.
  - Yep, the specimen based on which the species was described is the only one.
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing now.

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: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Mini ature is the largest frog in its genus? Source: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/meet-mini-mum-mini-ature-mini-scule-tiny-new-frogs-from-madagascar/
- ALT1: ... that Mini ature is larger than Mini scule and Mini mum? Source: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/meet-mini-mum-mini-ature-mini-scule-tiny-new-frogs-from-madagascar/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Karma Man

Improved to Good Article status by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 06:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

After a quick run-through, it satisfies DYK requirements. Copyvio looks solid, hook is interesting, short and adequately sourced, article was just promoted to GA, QYQ checked. I think the main one is better, as without stating that it's a frog I wouldn't know what it was talking about. Overall good to go. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P5

Invariable noun

It is regarded as an invariable noun (a noun with the same singular and plural forms). Surely for taxonomical purposes the main thing is that, say, it were transferred to another genus with a different grammatical gender (Mini was assigned a feminine grammatical gender) that the specific epithet wouldn’t have to change to agree? How a specific epithet becomes pluralized doesn’t really matter, no? Quoting the ICZN Code: 31.2.3. If a species-group name (or, in the case of a compound species-group name, its final component word) is not a Latin or latinized word [Arts. 11.2, 26], it is to be treated as indeclinable for the purposes of this Article, and need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined (the original spelling is to be retained, with ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1)., I think "invariable" is meant to just meant to mean "indeclinable" here. Umimmak (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak, sorry for the very late reply, but I've changed the gloss now in case you'd like to know. AryKun (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]