Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australian green tree frog/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 1:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC) [1].
Australian green tree frog edit
- Notified: User talk:LiquidGhoul, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because:
- The article is less than half the readable prose size of other featured articles in the same subject area: Green and golden bell frog, Common toad and Cane toad, indicating that the article might not be comprehensive. For example, this source (used in the article) says some taxonomists place the species in the Pelodryas genus, but there's no mention of this in the article.
- The sentence on HIV. The source appears to be a news story, but if the secretions were useful than there ought to be more substantial coverage in the scientific literature.
- There are some statements, such as that its lifespan is long for a frog and that reduction in numbers is difficult to spot, that ought to have citations. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it looks short, but I guess we'll need someone with a bit of expertise on frogs to determine whether the literature has been used exhaustively enough. Cwmhiraeth has worked on quite a few frog articles, maybe she has something to add? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the old FAC page, it seems some issues about sourcing were brought up but never acted on, as the writer responded with: "Inline citation are not required for featured article, and in my opinion they are not really necessary for uncontroversial information. In addition to the inline cites that are provided for relevant points, this article has a references section that list other works consulted writing the article." That does not seem to be how the FA criteria are written today. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This article became a FA ten years ago when I guess standards were rather different from what they are now. Since then it has suffered from quite a bit of vandalism and very little maintenance. At the moment I think it fails the comprehensiveness test. Looking at this source alone I see information that is not presently included in the article but needs to be added. I am unsure about FA review procedures. Shall I have a go at resuscitating the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I have done quite a bit of work on the article and think it is now closer to meeting the FA criteria than it was. In particular, I have added a section "Use in research" which brings it more up to date. With regard to the HIV research mentioned above, I have not found a published paper but the present source is not a news source but a pretty comprehensive statement about the direction in which the research is going. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Close without FARC. Thank you for expanding the article by more than 40% and removing the uncited text. I have cut a little bit more from the distribution section and added the citation for the scientific study on HIV. I can see on pubmed that there are literature reviews that cite the study, so I have no remaining WP:MEDRS concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added one cn tag, but this is within range to keep without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Close without FARC. just did some minor copyediting and hunting for other material without seeing much to add. Recomment closing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.