Wikipedia:Peer review/White's tree frog/archive1

White's Tree Frog

ha ha i ♥ the whites tree frog so much, ps if ur doin a report on the whites tree frog or anything else dont ever use wikipedia some of the info on here just isnt true anyone can add comments so b ware —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.11.109 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this article, and found that it is really hard to expand on it any more. The main feedback I would like, is where have I missed certain aspects of the subject. What would you like added? And obviously, I would like any other feedback that you have. Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I loved the "note: frog survived" on the caption of one of the photos. I do have a few questions and thoughts:

You mention that dogs and cats have joined the ranks of the frog's predators. Is the frog poisonous to them? If someone's beloved pet is found with frog legs hanging out of its mouth, is a visit to the vet indicated? Curiosity naturally makes me extend this to "is this frog edible by humans" too. (I'm sorry!) Either in a "if you are stuck in the bush, you could eat this" sense or in a "my toddler has got at the pet corner, argh!" sense.

I am not completely sure about this. The main problem with cats, is that they tend to kill them, but not eat them. I have seen this happen. As for dogs, I think the same happens, but less often. It is a very big frog, and eating one would be kind of disgusting to a cat or dog, they just tend to play too rough. Eating a frog for cuisine is illegal in Australia, and you would probably become sick if you ate one in the forest. If your toddler eats any pet, I suggest taking them to the doctor! --liquidGhoul 08:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link to the reference with the promised frog songs. Alas, I have neither WMP nor Quicktime. Is there any possibility at all of a recording for WikiCommons of a frog croaking away in a drainpipe as you describe? To someone from a country (UK) where this kind of thing is not usual, it sounds absolutely fascinating!

The one at my house has only JUST stopped calling. If we get a decent rain, I will be on alert, and try to make sure I record him. Although, he is no longer sleeping in the gutter, but on the awning, so it will not be amplified. --liquidGhoul 08:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this is the sort of thing you were looking for. I realise that some of these are a bit difficult to fulfil, but they were really the only things left after reading it.

--Telsa 18:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful, I will research the things you mentioned, and try to get the call.

What an attractive, well-written article. It's encyclopedic and unemotional in tone, and still makes the critter sound extremely appealing. ("Docile"? "Obese"? I'm in love!) I see your problem about finding more to say, though. The sections are mostly very short, which makes a choppy impression, and is sure to be complained of on FAC. At the same time the information seems comprehensive to me. Maybe you could wait for input from frog people, and, if none is forthcoming, merge some sections? --Bishonen | talk 18:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading "Physical description" probably shouldn't have a map of Australia directly under it. Try putting an image of the frog as illustrated in the physical description text. In that Australia map, the caption does not say which colour indicates where the frogs are. Why don't they cover all of Australia? Can these statements be explained more clearly: "Most taxonomists classify the species in the genus Litoria, but some place it in Pelodryas" & "the name White's tree frog is more accepted globally."? Avoid one-paragraph sections. There are many short sections, try finding common themes and merging (like Diet & predators, or Behavior & Call). Frogs have teeth? but they are so squishy... Try using Wikipedia:Footnotes to let the reader know where the references were used, especially with that "no evidence for a population decline" statement. Otherwise, it is a great description. --maclean25 09:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Removed Pelodryas statement until I can get more info on it. Image of frog as described is in the taxobox. Expanded distribution text, although cannot find why they are restricted to south New Guinea (can someone help). Fixed caption. Merged 'Behaviour' and 'Call.' Expanded 'Medicinal properties' (need help expanding more). Added "(see [[Frog zoology#Digestion and Excretion| Frog zoology)" for teeth explanation. Added 2 footnotes.

I think the article is too fragmented- using one that I got featured as an example I would,

merge behaviour, diet and habitat into one section called Ecology and behaviour,
merge medicinal properties into physical description. There is quite alot of information about the antimicrobial peptides- I could email you some articles if you are interested
move the infomation about the name from the lead to a section called nomenclature or taxonomy and merge the similar species section into the new section
rewtire the lead to summarise the content.

--nixie 03:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done most of those things. I was worried about the paragraph sizes, but those merges made sense, and helped towards its quality. I would like those antimicrobial peptide articles please, they would help greatly. I also needs some tips for the intro, as it is a little lacking still. --liquidGhoul 06:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just expanded the intro, and have recently added the info on medical properties. I don't think there is anything that I have left undone. The intro may need to be copyedited to flow better, but I think it is pretty good in its current state. Does anyone have any issues with the current revision? --liquidGhoul 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]