Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mini mum/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2022 [1].

Mini mum

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a miniscule (ha) species of Malagasy frog, measuring just 8–11 mm in length. Other than its size and name, its unremarkable and poorly studied, although it does have very slightly more known about its ecology than the other two species in its genus. One of those, M. scule, is also an FA, and was TFA just a while back (which is actually why I decided to expand this article). AryKun (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Power / Elias

My FAC reviewing comeback! Here are some comments on prose

Resolved comments
  • The last sentence in the lead, which deals with the genus's publicity, seems better fit after "... being a pun on the word minimum."
    • Done.
  • In my view, the lead would be more cohesive if everything from "It has a burnt umber underside" to "due to its extremely small and highly deforested range." were split into another paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Lead has too many sentences in the "it [verb]" format for comfort
    • After splitting, there's only two consecutive sentences in that format, which I think is fine.
  • "on the basis of an" can we reduce this to "based on" ?
    • I don't see a need to change this, "on the basis of" reads better to me and this isn't a field guide where we have to pare it down as much as possible.
  • "in Atsimo-Atsinanana in Madagascar in 2014" -> perhaps these successive in's can be reduced? There are lots of ways to it
    • Reworded, please check.
  • Do we need a wiktionary link for the word minimum? I imagine most people know what the word means, plus you do not link to wiktionary in the lead. Keep it consistent
    • Removed.
  • "the other two species in its genus, the species" repeating "species" here is clunky - could simply substitute the latter instance with Mini mum
  • "It is part of the family Microhylidae, a widespread family of over 650 species of mostly small frogs." -> "the family Microhylidae, which consists of over 650 species..." I see no need to say it is widespread as the number speaks for itself
    • Widespread is used in the geographical sense, as compared to 600 species that all occur on Madagascar.
  • "related to a clade" -> "the clade" ?
    • This is the first mention of the clade, so "a" is correct.
  • "However, a 2021 phylogeny by Alain Dubois and colleagues instead" -> remove either "however" or "instead"
    • Removed instead.
  • "both" is redundant and should be removed
    • Done.
  • "that to be monophyletic" this phrase on its own is unclear. Is this referring to Mini and Plethodontohyla? If so, I'd change it to "for the two to be monophyletic, Plethodontohyla and Mini should be..."
    • For Cophyla to be monophyletic, reworded.
  • I don't think "lumping" has a degree of technicality in the context of this article such that it warrants a WL - feel free to contend
    • It does, I don't think many people know what lumping is in taxonomy. Specified the link to the relevant part of the article.
  • "The sides are black, with a prominent border between the sides and back." -> "between it and the back"
    • Changed to "them and the back"
  • "The underside is burnt umber, darker towards the front, flecked with beige" -> this is an incomplete sentence. Could be fixed by adding "and" before "flecked"
    • Done.
  • Remove the "to" in "than to the snout"
    • Done.
  • "with the head being wider than it is long and narrower than the body" is clunky. Change to "Its head has a greater width than length, and it is narrower than the body"
    • I think that the current version reads better the your suggestion, it's shorter and less split up.
  • The usage of it in "It lacks maxillary, premaxillary, and vomerine teeth" reads as though the fingers/toes lack teeth
    • Reworded.
  • There is a stray whitespace after "S. obscoena"
    • Removed
  • "Distribution and habitat" and "Ecology and conservation" are incredibly short sections. Can they be merged?
    • Not really, Ecology and Conservation are already two usually separate sections that I've merged, merging this with Distribution would result in a section that has a bunch of disparate info not really relevant to each other.

That is all from me ^^ ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

Please feel free to contest any copy-edits I make as I go. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some redundany in the lead's first paragraph, with wordplay effectively mentioned twice; can this be tightened?
    • I don't see how it's redundant; the first sentence states that the name is a pun, and the second states that it got noticed in the media because its name was a pun.
  • What is the significance of the preservation method to the appearance?
    • It's mentioned in the last sentence of the first para in Description; " In life, the species is browner and less iridescent."
  • The structure currently strikes me as somewhat odd; I would combine conservation and distribution information, as closely related. Also, information about vocalization is currently split between sections. You could put it all in ecology.
    • Conservation and distribution aren't particularly closely related sections, they're usually separate in articles. The Conservation section has already been merged with ecology, and merging another section would just make a hodgepodge of everything known about the frog that isn't taxonomy or appearance.
      • Sorry, I disagree. Everything we know about conservation is a consequence of its distribution. Separating the info is confusing, and repetitive. I suggest placing vocalization and habitat choice in a section titled "ecology", and combining distribution and conservation in a separate section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really a standard format that any TOL article does, so I don't really think I can implement that unless more editors agree.
    • The vocalization info in description is there because it helps tell the species apart from similar Stumpffia. The info in ecology is there because it's more behavioral than about identifying the species.
      • Vocalization is generally understood as an aspect of ecology, however. There's no reason the ecology cannot be compared to another species. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As above, since this isn't a standard format, I can't implement it unless more editors agree.
          • That's not actually true; absent talk page consensus, or actual project-wide consensus on format (as opposed to common practice), you can format it however you like. You're choosing not to, which is okay if you disagree with my suggestion, but please don't pass the buck on responsibility for that choice. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less all I have. You've done a fine job here, and to the best of my knowledge no other sources exist to beef this up. That said; it's very sparse, and we know next to nothing about this species besides its appearance and phylogenetic position. Based on the way the community currently sees the FAC criteria, I will support once my concerns are addressed, but I do think it's fair to say that sometimes all the available material still doesn't add up to a common-sense definition of comprehensive. This reflects the state of some topics, rather than any failing on the nominator's part. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not opposing here as the concerns are relatively minor. However, I believe they do hinder understanding; in particular, the fact that distribution and conservation information are separated here makes a bigger deal of the conservation piece than is reasonable (a point also raised by Nick below), and combined with concerns about scarcity of information, makes me withhold my support for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

I'm leaning oppose, as I don't think that the limited sources have been used as well as would be hoped in a FA:

  • "this wordplay led to the genus receiving media attention when first described" - not sure the article really supports this statement in the lead, as the body of the article says something different ("M. mum received publicity...") and the two works cited aren't really mass media. The concept here is also a bit clunky and inaccurate, not least as the mongabay article is actually focused on the very small size of the frog rather than it's name and the Smithsonian Magazine article notes the name at the outset as a way of focusing on the tiny size of the frog.
    • Both of the articles only cursorily address the other two microhylids the paper described, with most of the attention on the three species whose names are puns. There are dozens of microhylids described every year, and most get nowhere close to this much attention, because their names aren't interesting puns. As for mass media, there are other articles I haven't cited because I felt that would be overkill (by NatGeo, Mashable, Quartz, etc.), and that is a fair amount of media attention for an obscure Malagasy frog - it obviously isn't going to be front page of the BBC.
  • "Mini mum has an extremely limited range, being known only from areas in the Manombo Special Reserve" - given that the frog was only recently discovered and is obviously extremely difficult to detect, this seems much too conclusive. It also doesn't accurately represent the source, which states that the frog is also likely to be located in the area immediately outside the Manombo Special Reserve as well - the discussion of this in the source is quite interesting, and I'm surprised the article doesn't reflect this.
    • In any case, its range is extremely limited, as mentioned in the journal article ("extremely miniaturized frogs in Madagascar almost always are [extreme micro-endemics]"). The WP article says "being known only from areas in the Manombo Special Reserve", which is accurate, since it has only been recorded from areas within the reserve, even if it may occur in nearby areas just outside the reserve.
  • The mongabay article also notes the difficulty in actually finding the frogs.
    • That would perhaps be suited for an article on extremely miniaturized frogs in general, but doesn't really add much to the discussion of this species specifically. It's a bit like adding that bathypelagic fish are hard to find to an article about a specific species of bathypelagic fish - it's obvious and uninformative.
  • the authors of the article in which it is described recommended that it be listed as critically endangered due to its extremely small and highly deforested range" this also seems a bit simplistic given the authors note that similar species found in the nature reserve have received this classification.
    • The similar species also received the classification because the reserve is small and surrounded by heavily deforested areas.
  • The Smithsonian Magazine has some interesting observations of the frog and related species evolutionary paths that don't seem to be drawn on
    • Added some information on how the sister genus Plethodontohyla contains the world's largest microhylid frog.
  • "Scherz, Mark D. "Meet the mini frogs of Madagascar -- the new species we've discovered". The Conversation." - needs publishing and access dates.
    • Added.
  • The Smithsonian Magazine reference needs a publishing date
    • Added.
  • It's unclear why different date formats are used for the two academic articles
    • Fixed.
  • Mark D. Scherz notes in his blog (http://www.markscherz.com/archives/4055) that he also discusses the frog as part of his PhD, with this forming the basis of the journal article focused on it and the other two species. Is the PhD available online? (though it looks like it may be in German). This article also notes a bunch of news stories about the discovery of the frog, though they may not add anything. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked the PhD thesis (here, starting page 190) and there isn't anything on this species particularly that wasn't already published in the article describing the species.
  • For any concerns about the accuracy of the WP article, I asked Mark Scherz if he could look over the article once, and his comments are on his user talk here; he says the article is factually accurate, but has a couple comments. He thinks the Dubois phylogeny should be given less weight due to its problematic methodology, and that the article isn't sufficiently paraphrased to avoid FREECOPY (which you guys decide). AryKun (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D, I've replied to all your comments. AryKun (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for not responding here. My general view is that given the article is short and sourcing is limited (and will almost certainly always remain limited - it seems unlikely that anyone will do further studies of this obscure and hard to study species, though hopefully I'm wrong), there's some useful material you are choosing to exclude for reasons that aren't clear to me. I'll strike the oppose, but concur with Vanamonde's view that the article isn't as comprehensive as could be possible Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Well over three weeks in, just the single general support and a pair of reviews raising concerns. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus seems to be forming to promote this, so I am timing it out. The usual two week wait will apply.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mini_mum/archive1&oldid=1125620018"